| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 1:29:18 PM
|
Anyone know how much money is left in the Stabilization Fund and Budgetary Fund?
On items #1-6, Does that mean that some of those accounts have been overspent?
#7.
It's just me, but I wouldn't take a dime from Wood Waste.
#10.
I am interested in seeing which way the wind is blowing on the Common Council. This traffic light will help with the new development of Lower Broadway.
#18.
I hope there is some discussion on this not just "read and place on file".
#23.
Anyone know what this is about? $500,000.00 is a lot of money.
#26.
This could be a way of getting some much needed new revenue and it won't be coming from the backs of the already overly burdened Everett taxpayer. I think it's worth taking a look at.
"Here comes the judge" |
Edited by - massdee on 02/25/2010 1:42:18 PM |
 |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 2:03:19 PM
|
Massdee,
Two of those transfers are for the purchase/repair of fire trucks that weren't include in any FY10 budget, capital or otherwise.
The others are putting money towards the FY11 budget. I'm not sure what to think about those without seeing an entire FY11 budget at a minimum.
If the Special Senate election transfer passes (which it should), there will be $3,205,311 left in free cash before any of these transfers are considered. I don't have an exact balance on the stabilization fund. But I believe that the last time the question was asked, the balance of it was somewhere in $8.8 to $8.9 million range.
#23 is in response to a statement that the Mayor made Monday night about the city being forced to pick up the cost of the Federally mandated extension of unemployment benefits.
Unless there are any further questions that I can help with, I'll withhold any further comments on these agenda items until my usual Sunday morning posting. |
Edited by - tetris on 02/25/2010 2:12:39 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 9:17:37 PM
|
WOW.....two million six hundred thousand and change from stabilization??
Those transfers are so they can go to the finance committee meeting and say "we don't have over run accounts"
I hope a committee member requests a fiscal year activity report prior to the meeting. A prior fiscal year activity report would be helpful too. Transfers are supposed to be done on an add needed basis and these are out of control just to cover their tracks.
What they heck has the budget director and her overpaid assistant been doing all this time? Twiddling their thumbs but keep collecting a paycheck? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 9:48:27 PM
|
Tails....I'm not following you....the transfers are for FY11. How does that "cover their tracks"?
Do you have any facts or are you speculating? I don't care either way, I just think it is important to be clear. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 10:12:59 PM
|
| I should have been clear, that's IMHO but it's my belief that some of those accounts are over run. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 10:28:51 PM
|
| Which ones? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2010 : 7:19:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by just wondering
Tails....I'm not following you....the transfers are for FY11. How does that "cover their tracks"?
Do you have any facts or are you speculating? I don't care either way, I just think it is important to be clear.
How can it be next years? It's coming out FY10 free cash.
This years free cash ends July 1st. I don't think we have any idea what FY11's free cash is.
The accounts I'm referring to are the ones that all the high priced new hires, like the Personnel Director, Frank Nuzzo, Water Dept, jobs for favors, NONE were budgeted for and should have been from the salary account.
By law, the transfer is supposed to be done before you spend it.
I have a problem with using stabilization. That is a rainy day fund and should not be used.
The money for the schools should have been budgeted for. The administration knows that bill is coming every year but did not budget it because they would have been over the levy limit.
|
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 9:49:34 PM
|
I didn't see transfers going into accounts belonging to the Water Dept, Personnel and Code Enforcement....which agenda lines are you referring to?
BTW....there were about a hundred business owners that attended a forum on Wednesday night. Give them a call, they will tell you its raining. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 12:01:35 PM
|
| It's sad that it took the business community to make the administration realize that it's raining out. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2010 : 7:44:26 PM
|
It's sad that bitterness oozes from your pores.
How come I never read anything about you looking for real spending changes that will make a difference?
Cheaper health care options...pension reform....debt restructuring....changes to the recycling program.
Instead, you complain about a hundred thousand in salary....which amounts to next to nothing on your tax bill. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2010 : 10:57:32 PM
|
Better late than never. I had a lot to say about this week's agenda and have been running behind on a number of things, so I couldn't get these finished before now.
1. - 6.
As I said the other day, I'm not exactly sure what to think about those transfers that are putting money towards the FY11 budget without seeing the budget. At a minimum, I'd also settle for some additional comments framing how they fit together with the budget. Maybe we'll get some. But that still won't prevent me from offering some comments about these transfer ahead of tomorrow night's meeting. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I'll take that chance even though I'm not sure that these items will even be discussed much at that meeting. There is a Finance Committee meeting scheduled for this coming Thursday night and these items really belong there. Since those meetings are now supposed to be televised, I don't really have an issue with that. But first, some general comments about the transfers and then we'll look at them individually.
This is not the first time that money has been transferred from one tax year to another. Two years ago, $2 million was transferred from free cash to the next year's tax levy. At the time, I questioned if this could be done. Never did receive an answer because I would have had to expose my identity to really force the issue. That may not so much of an issue anymore but the real answer is that it really doesn't matter all that much in the scheme of things. There is an easy way around it. The money can be transferred to some type of account that doesn't lose it's balance at the end of the year, i.e., some type of continuing appropriation account or even the stabilization fund. Then, after the new fiscal begins, the money could be transferred to the FY11 accounts.
I'm not sure if the money should be transferred to the actual FY11 line items or to just to offset the FY11 tax levy. By transferring the funds to the line items, it would give the false appearance that the budget was cut and would mess up year-to-year comparisons of the line items. The parking one may have to be done to actual line items (which aren't spelled out in that transfer) but that's never been clear; as long the amount transferred from the parking receipts doesn't exceed the department's budget, it really shouldn't matter. But they should do whatever the law dictates. All that said, I'm grateful that we at least got an idea of what the money being transferred is intended to offset rather than just transferring lump sums.
I don't really see the need to actually transfer the money to the FY11 budget at this point in time though. I had the same concern two years ago when the $2 million was transferred well in advance of the new fiscal year. My concern then was that the administration might look bad if they found that they needed to use for something else in the intervening time period; they didn't. So they have shown that they have some discipline when it comes to doing something like this. It may be a case that they just got lucky too.
My concern this time is that these transfers have been submitted with no idea of what the budget will look like. We might have had a better idea about that if last week's budget item at the BOA meeting hadn't been referred to this week's Finance Committee meeting. I don't want to get into assigning any blame for that. I think that both sides would have valid points. It is what it is. So here's where I have to stick my neck out a little. If these are transfers are being done to once again plug structural deficits in the budget, I'm not sure how I can support them. If these transfers are being done on top of the budget being truly cut in a serious way, then these transfer have to get some real consideration.
Tapping into any type of reserves that the city has at this time should only be done after very careful consideration. The city is only beginning a very challenging period where pension costs will be rising for a long time to come. After reading the piece in today's Globe, I guess I was unaware of how big the health insurance problem is and how it could continue to grow in ways that I wasn't aware of if something isn't done. As some have remarked, it is raining out. If all the reserve start getting used up now, what will we do when its starts pouring? Not easy questions by any stretch of the imagination.
On to the individual items:
1.
Not much really much more to say about this one beyond what I've already said about transfers to the FY11 budget. We know that the pension obligation will go up every year for the foreseeable future and the worst is yet to come. Although the documents currently posted there are a little dated, if you've never seen it, I'd suggest taking a looking at the PERAC site (You must be logged in to see this link. ) to get an idea of what the city is up against in with its pension obligations in the upcoming years.
2.
Transferring money from the meter receipts account to be used to run the Parking Office has usually been an annual event in the last few years, as well it should since it is one of the few things that those funds can be used for. However, as far as I can tell, that never happened in FY10. So, there should be plenty of money in that account. No problem with this one other than it being done so early. Like I said earlier, I'd prefer to see the transfer to be applied to the levy itself; if that can't be done, then the transfer needs to be refined to allocate the funds to various line items.
3.
How much money is left in the Sale of Real Estate account? I've lost track of that one. Well, the proceeds from the sale of the old city yards were initially promised to be put towards the money borrowed to build the new city yards. So this at least does a little bit of that. Again, I already weighted in on my feelings about tapping into reserve funds and transfers to the FY11 budget.
4.
I disagree with the Mayor that the city has a true Capital Improvements Budget. A list with a number of items on it doesn't qualify as a budget. But if there were real Capital Improvements Budget, this is a item that should be on it. Given the balance of the Budgetary Fund Balance without any of these other transfers, where the city is in the fiscal year and the pressing need to repair this equipment, I don't really see why anyone wouldn't support this.
5.
This one raises a lot of questions in my mind. Doesn't mean that I don't support it though.
First off, didn't one of the aldermen request that some (all?, can't remember) of the extra money that is supposed to be returned from the stadium project be put towards this purchase? So what is this transfer really saying? Does it mean that the money is not going to be returned, giving credence to a rumor posted elsewhere? Or does it mean that they'd like to purchase the truck before that and the money will be put back in the stabilization fund once it is returned from the stadium project? Let's hope that it is the later of course.
But what if it is the former case? Let's leave the why that would have happened out of it for now; that would be just idle speculation without any facts. Instead, let's look at the stabilization fund and and give some thoughts on how it ought to be used. When it was first conceived, the stabilization fund was supposed to be used to pay for the upgrades to the schools. Just ask FFF. But over time, its usage has morphed into something else; it's the city's savings account or rainy day fund. The balance maintained in it is very important to the city's bond rating. When should it be used? Some people will tell you never; other will tell you when it's raining. And there is no doubt, it's raining.
I think that the city needs to have some type of plan to deal with maintaining and replacing their fire apparatus much like there was with police cars before the current budget woes. But the city isn't really at a point where that can be done. But there is a crying need for a new fire truck. I really would not have a problem if this acquisition had to come from the stabilization fund. The stabilization has a healthy balance it, what's wrong with using some of it when it is really needed? It's a one-time thing and will leave the account with a healthy balance. This has to be done. What's the alternative, borrowing more money? Since it has to be done, I think that it is a good choice for using those funds if necessary.
6.
This one, on the other hand, I can't even think about supporting without a lot more information. This one transfer will wipe out roughly 18% of the value of the stabilization fund it one fell swoop. It will put stabilization funds towards the building of the schools as originally intended; but so what? The real question is this is being done to plug a structural deficit in the budget? If it is, I'm sorry but the city doesn't have deep enough pockets to keep doing that.
Some will disagree with this statement and I'm sure we can find isolated instances where it is not true. But the truth is there is not a lot of fat in the actual city budget as it stands now. Sure, there are things that could and should be changed such as health insurance but, until that happens, the budget is what it is. It's a result of decisions that have and haven't been made over a long period of time.
It's hard thing to say but to fix any structural deficits and relieve the burden on the taxpayer, the budget needs to be cut and it has to be cut across the board, including public safety. The longer that the decision to do that has been delayed, the harder it has made it. I just don't see any other way of correcting this. I realize that it's not going to be easy though.
7.
Massdee, this transfer is from Waste Management, not Wood Waste. I almost made the same mistake myself until I went back and looked at it again. It might have been the fact that there was a lot more verbiage included in the item than your normal donation. It made look as if they were trying to hard to justify something but I guess that really is just a case of “it is what it is” though. Anyone know what a medical sharp is?
8.
I would have been really interested in seeing the text of this ordinance before it was adopted. Just curiosity more than anything, I guess.
15.
My support for this piece has been tepid at best. But after reading the commentary in last week's Leader-Herald, I'm not sure that I can support it all anymore. Who is right about the effect on the city's liability insurance, the Mayor's Chief of Staff or the paper. If it's going to cost the city one dime more, I'm not sure that they should be taking on that expense at this time.
The paper also made a good point about the Board of Aldermen being the ones to issue this permit. In a city with a full empowered Liquor License Commission, is this really proper? I think that it was done more as a check and balance provision since the License Commission is really just an extension of the administration. And that's not a knock on the present administration; just more of an observation of how it really works especially when the administration has appointed all the members of the commission. I think that, at a minimum, it is necessary for the Common Council to ask a few more questions about this piece before they take the final vote on it for passage.
16.
It's too bad that there might be another, better way to address this issue that can't be considered because of personal disputes.
18.
I doubt we'll hear a whole lot else on this piece other than what we heard from the Public Service meeting. But I'm also sure that we haven't heard the last of this piece either. I'm sure that Councilor Napolitano will re-introduce the piece again when he feels that the time is appropriate.
23.
I think that part of the problem with this is how the city pays its unemployment bill. A regular business makes contributions to Federal and State unemployment funds (FUTA and SUTA) when it pays the taxes associated with a payroll and their claims are paid directly from the state fund. The city is billed only when unemployment is used. That said, I don't think that the city should be forced to pick up the cost of a federal mandate when the private sector clearly doesn't have to. I have no idea how they'll go about recouping these funds or if they even can.
But $500,000? How many people has the city been letting go recently? If part of it belongs to the School Department, shouldn't there at least be some consideration given to make them be responsible for their own portion of the pie?
25.
It must almost be spring-time; it's time to start taking about Mt. Washington Street again. Let's see where this does (or doesn't) go this time.
26.
I also think that this is a great idea to explore. And I'm glad that the way it was presented, it wasn't just limited to LNG. |
Edited by - tetris on 02/28/2010 11:14:51 PM |
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 9:21:07 PM
|
| this meeting was so dysfuntional I had to laugh what a bunch of morons, toward the end there were not enough people they suspend rule 17 after they talk about money what is up with Rosa tonite, much be to much for her to handle |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 10:08:27 PM
|
1. - 6.
In my pre-meeting comments, I supported items 4 & 5. So, except in one way, I'm OK with the items being passed tonight; we'll get to my issue later. I would have liked a little more discussion on the usage of the stabilization fund as a source of funding though. Maybe next week at the alderman's meeting.
And I'm sticking with my numbers for the balance in the stabilization fund. Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if the left hand knew what the right hand was doing and Mr. DeCoste didn't leave after he thought that the item had been disposed of.
My only real issue is that the city tradition of backing the city council into a corner and forcing a vote to meet a deadline continues. That wouldn't happen if the funding was secured before going out to bid. Yes, this way only the exact amount needs to be transferred. But, at least in this case, they've had a pretty good idea how much this acquisition would cost for a long time and any excess funds could have just been returned.
Not surprised that the remainder of these items were all sent to the Finance Committee. That's where they belong.
15.
I get it. They want to have a wine tasting to raise some money for the library. A noble cause for sure; but in order to do that, they've opened up a huge can of worms. After the editorial that appeared in last's week's Leader-Herald, I can't believe that no one in the administration came to the meeting with a definitive answer to the liability insurance question. But because they didn't, why would anyone have an issue with putting the item on the table for two weeks? What has happened to the defenders of the tax payers?
16.
Again what's wrong with asking the question? Even if the question has been asked before, things have changed since then. There now seems to be a developer with a plan in place. That said, the request can't hold up the project but, as Councilor Cardello said, it's not impossible to address issues that come along after a construction project has started.
25.
About what was expected. How long do we think that this issue will drag on?
26.
I guess it was a common theme tonight to have an issue with asking questions tonight.
I have to agree with card. Tonight's meeting was pretty dysfunctional. It really went to hell after they had to reconsider items 4 and 5. And I just don't understand why members are allowed to take their pieces out of order when there is no one there to appear on them; it just disrupts any flow the meeting has. And just where did everyone disappear to? And why do they have to go looking for the city solicitor? I thought that part of that job, per the city ordinances, was to attend all regular City Council meetings. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 2:10:30 PM
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL, MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010, 7:00 PM, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 3RD FL., EVERETT, MASS
COMMUNICATIONS FROM HIS HONOR THE MAYOR
1. C0045-10 Resolution/s/Councilor Rosa DiFlorio, as President
To introduce Kevin Tarpley as a representative of Smile Initiative of MA, LLC, which will be occupying the dental clinic within the Health Department in City Hall.
2. C0047-10 Order/s/Councilor Rosa DiFlorio, as President
To transfer $400.00 from the Veterans Office Supplies Account into the Veterans Salary Account. This account is for the grade work increase for a period of six weeks in the Veterans Director's absence for work handled by his Clerk.
PAPERS FROM THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
3. A0082-10 Ordinance/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, as President
To amend Chapter 1 "General Provisions" of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett by adding new section, "Section 1-24 City Census Regulations. (Enrolled sent down for enrollment)
4. A0083-10 Order/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, as President
That the City of Everett accept Chapter 26 of the Acts of 2010, an Act relative to the "Collection of Unpaid Municipal Fines" in order to create a hearing officer for fines and to allow the municipality to lien properties for unpaid fines incurred as a result of a violation of a rule, regulation, order, ordinance or by-law regulating the housing and sanitary code. (Passed sent down for concurrence)
5. C0041-10 Order/s/Councilor Rosa DiFlorio, as President
That the amount of $498,724.00 be transferred from the Stabilization Fund Account into the Fire Department's Triple Combination Pumper Account to purchase a new truck. (Amended by deleting "transferred from the Stabilization Fund Account" and inserting "appropriated from the Budgetary Fund Balance") Passed as amended, sent down for concurrence on the amendment.
COMMUNICATIONS
6. C0035-10 Order/s/Councilor Daniel J. Napolitano
Favorable recommendation from the Director of Veteran Services Joe Hickey-To dedicate and name a location, to be designated by the Director of Veteran Services, in honor of Philip J. Napolitano, Sr. , a WWII Veteran and Member of U. S. Army 182nd Infantry Regiment which was a part of the Americale Division and re-enforced the Marines at Guadalcanal.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
7. C0016-10 /s/Committee on Finance Report on
Resolution offered by Councilor Jason Marcus-That the Finance Committee study a pay raise for the Mayor; with a recommendation to refer back to Sponsor.
8. C0033-10 /s/COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORDINANCES REPORT ON
Resolution/s/Councilor Peter A. Napolitano-That the City of Everett create legislation to allow for a docking fee or tax to be assessed to large ships being escorted into and docked at any of the Everett commercial docking facilities in South Everett.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. C0020-10 Resolution/s/Councilors Daniel J. Napolitano, Sal DiDomenico and Madam Alderman Millie J. Cardello
That the City consider placing two free white good stickers in the next set of tax bills which will be sent out in the spring.
10. C0025-10 Resolution/s/Councilor Kenneth Giannelli, Councilor Peter Napolitano and Councilor Anthony Ranieri
That the Everett Police and State Police establish a consistent presence at the rotary of Sweeter Circle during peak traffic hours, as well as, coordinate traffic enforcement on Route16 at the request of abutting residents.
11. A0027-10 Ordinance/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, as President
To amend Chapter 13, Section 13-1 (c) " Public Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages. (Enrolled, as amended, sent down for enrollment)
12. C0012-10 Resolution/s/Councilor Sergio Cornelio
To ask the DCR to look into the drainage problem on the Revere Beach Parkway at Lewis Street. When it rains it floods in that area causing traffic problems and accidents.
13. C0034-10 Resolution/s/Councilor Lou Sierra
To request the presence of the City Engineer this meeting with regards to the collapsed wall at 19 Mt. Washington Street and update future work on this said street.
NEW BUSINESS
14. C0044-10 Resolution/s/Councilor Jason Marcus
That Director of Code Enforcement and a Representative of the Police Department appear this meeting relative to discussing an update on the progress made toward cleaning up trash pickers.
15. C0046-10 CC Worksheet
1.Sponsor: Councilor Rosemary Miller- To fill in potholes on Coburn Terrace onto Blake Terrace. Also the sidewalk at Blake and Gledhill be repaired. City looks into conflicting street names of Coburn Terrace where it runs right onto Blake Terrace.
Referred to: City Services Director, Mayor and City Engineer.
2. Sponsor: Councilor Eloy Lou Sierra-To replace cement around the fire hydrant at bottom of Garland and Woodlawn due to seven inch lift.
Referred to: City Services Director and Fire Prevention
Adjournment
Respectfully submitted:
C.McCorry, Adm. Assist. /Ofc. Mgr.
Everett City Council
council@ci.everett.ma.us
Meeting Dates:
3/16 Committee on Bills and Accts and Public Service at 6pm
3/22 Board of Aldermen Meeting at 7pm
3/23 Committee on Public Safety Meeting at 6pm
4/5 Next Common Council Meeting at 7pm
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2010 : 12:33:04 AM
|
2.
Really? I guess I'm used to working in a different world where you're lucky to get an “Atta Boy” or a pat on the back when you find yourself in a situation where you have to fill in for your boss for a extended period of time.
3.
I really wish that someone would find a way to share the actual language contained in new ordinances while they are still in the approval process with the general public.
4.
If you haven't already read it, there was a good editorial in last Thursday's Leader-Herald about the adoption of this act. I'm in agreement with the piece that this law won't apply to tickets written before the implementation of the act. We differ a little bit on the snow removal ordinance portion of the law though. I believe that there is one way to read the language in that act so that a snow removal isn't required; but I don't think that it's a good idea not to have one. But the Leader piece picked up on one point that I missed. Because the act does not contain an emergency preamble, the law can't be implemented until 90 days after it was signed. In this case, that would be until some time in May.
I hope that the Common Council hones in on some of these issues Monday night. While I generally favor a unicameral government, here's another example where a single body government is going to have to step up their game or change the way that they do business to prevent these types of issues from slipping thru if that change ever comes to pass.
5.
A couple of the local papers went out of their way to praise the Mayor for the actions that he took on this piece last week. And to be fair, the Mayor did everything that he could to keep this piece on track without any major confrontations. But my question is, why did it have to be that way in the first place?
The Mayor should have been well aware that some people where going to have a problem with this transfer coming from Stabilization Fund. He should have had a better reason for using the Stabilization Fund for this transfer when an acceptable alternative could be so easily found.
I actually pretty much agreed with the Mayor that taking this amount of money out of the Stabilization Fund likely wouldn't hurt the city's bond rating a lot. That's why I was able to support it coming from the Stabilization Fund in my comments two weeks ago. But without a good reason for it, I think that it just could have set what may be a bad precedent.
Also, it's good to see that Mr. DeCoste will speak his mind, no matter who he is working for. It's especially interesting to see it now because his appointment expired a year ago now and hasn't been renewed.
7.
Well, we never did get to see the first few minutes of the Finance Committee to explain actually why Councilor Marcus (per the committee report, anyways) requested this piece to be referred back to sponsor. Even though the Mayor is underpaid in relation to other local mayors and city managers, I hope that someone finally realized that increasing his salary at this time just would have sent the wrong message.
8.
If you haven't seen the Rules and Ordinances Committee meeting, the answer that was received on assessing a docking fee was that it wouldn't be allowed under Federal law.
9.
As well intentioned as this piece is, I believe that, again, it's just the wrong time for the city to be giving out “free” white good stickers.
10.
I actually saw the State Police at Sweeter Circle one morning last week, giving a ticket to one of those drivers who think it's a good idea to blast by the traffic waiting on the ramp from the Parkway westbound to the rotary. I'd like to see that more often myself.
11.
So, let's see if we get a lesson on municipal liability insurance this week. And I don't think that the Leader-Herald will be happy unless their issue with allowing the BOA to get involved in permitting uses in city buildings is addressed as well.
12.
The drainage problem on the Revere Beach Parkway at Lewis Street has been there for years. And it's hardly the only one on the Parkway. And if Councilor Cornelio even gets a response from the DCR, will they follow through on it? Weren't there supposed to put up some school signs in the same area? I don't recall that ever happening.
13.
I'm sure that Councilor Sierra will be all fired up again this week about Mt. Washington Street, especially after all the rain this weekend. But the real question, as always, is will be can any real progress be made on the issue?
14.
Although I agree with the idea behind this piece, I think that Councilor Marcus is chasing his tail on it. I think it has already been stated more than once that no one has the desire to come down hard on the trash pickers, especially in these tough economic times. And while I think that taking items from recycling bins is stealing, given the ever diminishing desirable options for cashing in your points (in my opinion anyways), it just doesn't seem that important at this time. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Common Council/2010
