| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2010 : 1:30:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tetris
Backing the City Council into a corner and forcing them to make a "take-it or leave-it" decision is a long-standing political tradition in this city. Mayor DeMaria readily admits that he didn't like it when it was done to him when he served on the City Council. Yet, if you go back and check the City Council agendas for the last three Junes, you'll see that he has done nothing but continue that tradition.
It's also a long standing tradition for the city's administrations to only share with the City Council information that they want them to know when they feel that they need to know it. The fact that the administration entered into a consent agreement with the DEP two years ago means that they knew this day was coming; but, they were the only ones that did. And this wasn't the only piece on the agenda like that. The report on city buildings has been available since last July but was only made available to the City Council in the last month or so.
And when faced with situations like this in the past, the City Council has usually relented and let the administrations have their way. So why would the current adminstration think that this situation would be any different? And because of that, I don't believe that the administration did a very good job of addressing all of the details that they needed to in order to "sell" these projects to the Board of Aldermen.
Instead, what the Board got again was essientially the same request to "Trust me" that didn't work when the administration was looking for approval to sell the old High School . That didn't work then; why would anyone expect for it to work now? It begs the question of whether or not this administraion actually learns from its mistakes.
In the current economic situation, it is tough to swallow the state mandating a $5.5 million project or being forced to face a possible hefty fine. But I could actually have actually supported this project if the City Council felt comfortable that all the "i's" had been dotted and all the "t's" had been crossed. I could even support borrowing the money to fix culvert if the appropriate agreements had been negotiated and were in place.
I think that the city has lost a golden oppotunity to borrow the money needed to do these projects at a very low interest rate. If you're a DeMaria supporter, sure you are ready to lay this at the feet of the Board of Alderman. But we'll never know what would have happened if the administration had submitted a complete package for these projects, now will we?
Well said, Tetris. My sentiments exactly. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 4:02:14 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by just wondering
'Instead, what the Board got again was essientially the same request to "Trust me" that didn't work when the administration was looking for approval to sell the old High School . That didn't work then; why would anyone expect for it to work now? It begs the question of whether or not this administraion actually learns from its mistakes.'
The request to 'Trust Me' didn't work....but that doesn't mean it shouldnt have worked. The BoA shot down the mayors request regarding the high school. Instead, they demanded a public meeting for abutters to voice their concerns. I attended that meeting. I heard nothing new from residents that wasnt already discussed or considered to be common sense. You present the mayors 'Trust Me' stance as a learning experience for the mayor. I disagree. I think it should have been a learning experience for the BoA. Absolutely nothing came from delaying the declaration of surplus property. Nothing new was learned by the BoA. Yet here we are....for no good reason, delaying the sale and continuing to write checks for maintenance. In the case of the old high school, the decision by the BoA to not trust the mayor has already backfired. We continue to pay for maintenance and at the same time send a strong message to potential developers that we really aren't ready for new development.
Higher interest rates for the sewer/culvert project, loss of a private business partner and delaying the declaration of the old HS as surplus property will cost us millions of dollars. While that may not have been the BoA's intent when deciding to micromanage.....it is certainly a biproduct of their actions. Shouldn't they atleast take that into consideration when they make these decisions?
[/quote
I have just now seen this post. I can't speak for Tetris but I will for myself.
I truly feel if the Administration had approached this differently, and the City Council had all the information in a more timely manner, the bond would have passed last night. I didn't hear anyone say they were not for the work to be done. $10 Million is a huge burden to put on the taxpayers and the BOA appeared not to be comfortable moving forward last night.
It is too bad the City Council has taken a summer break. (which I personally am not in favor of) It would be my hope that they are all called back in and this issue is revisited further. It certainly needs to be addressed.
You see, we are not in disagreement about the work being done. It is my hope that the Administration will be able to get something in writing from the private business and the City of Chelsea and the project can move forward. Without the agreements, I could never support the $10 Million. I could, however, maybe have supported an amendment last night to bring it down to a $5.5 Million bond. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 5:19:20 PM
|
Thanks for the rebuttal Massdee.
Why do you feel that something in writing is necessary from the BMT and the city of Chelsea? It was made clear last night by the CEO of our city that if agreements were not in place, neither the culvert work nor the secondary sewer spurs in Chelsea would be done. I can't think of any reasons great enough to let the opportunity for private business partnership and a 1% interest rate pass us by.
The BoA's insistence on being part of the creation of these agreements is costing us big $$$. The resonsibility of creating these agreements belongs to the Mayor's office.
Sift through all of the rumors and speculation....where are the facts that point to the mayors office not being trustworthy enough to negotiate on behalf of the people who elected him? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 12:25:32 PM
|
My own personal opinion, I don't feel it is smart to be taking a loan out in the city's name for a private business. When put like that, it doesn't even sound legal. I am sure it is or the city would not be trying to do it. I would feel more comfortable having something legally documented that BMT and the City of Chelsea are on board and will pay their share.
I cannot understand why this or any other Administration did not let our city officials and the taxpayers know this was looming in the background. Why wasn't the city council informed of the consent agreement? Why wasn't any of this brought up at the budget hearings? Information is knowledge and with knowledge the city officials might have voted differently on this issue.
In my opinion, this situation clearly gives the impression that the Administration is not being transparent to the people who elected him. There is way too much of this going on at the local, sate and federal level.
|
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:11:34 PM
|
"When put like that, it doesn't even sound legal. I am sure it is or the city would not be trying to do it. I would feel more comfortable having something legally documented that BMT and the City of Chelsea are on board and will pay their share."
There was a segment of the meeting where they discussed distribution of the funds from the loan. It was made clear that authorizing the application for the loan did not mean that a check for 10 million was going to be written out to the city. Instead, the funds would be distributed as work is completed. This brings us back to 'if BMT or Chelsea don't have written agreements, the work doesnt get done' If the work isnt being done, the funds arent distributed. If the funds arent distributed, the city isnt on the hook for payment.
I don't see why the BoA refuses to believe the mayor when he says 'WE WILL NOT BE DOING THE CULVERT WORK UNLESS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE' 'WE WILL NOT BE DOING THE SECONDARY STREET WORK UNLESS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE'. Can you help me understand this?
You may have a valid point regarding transparency...but was this really the time to make a stand on the issue? Aside from the vague 'we should pursue a grant' comments, there was no other alternative presented. This project has to be done. The mayor wasnt asking for funds to build a statue or to rebuild city hall. This project is mandated by the state as a result of quality of life concerns raised by Everett residents.
If in fact the BoA has taken a stand on transparency....there is a chance that their stance could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of additional interest expenditures. I'm sorry, but in my opinion that is too high a price to pay.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:15:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by massdee
My own personal opinion, I don't feel it is smart to be taking a loan out in the city's name for a private business. When put like that, it doesn't even sound legal. I am sure it is or the city would not be trying to do it. I would feel more comfortable having something legally documented that BMT and the City of Chelsea are on board and will pay their share.
I cannot understand why this or any other Administration did not let our city officials and the taxpayers know this was looming in the background. Why wasn't the city council informed of the consent agreement? Why wasn't any of this brought up at the budget hearings? Information is knowledge and with knowledge the city officials might have voted differently on this issue.
In my opinion, this situation clearly gives the impression that the Administration is not being transparent to the people who elected him. There is way too much of this going on at the local, sate and federal level.
What I found a little disturbing was the fact that no one addressed the contamination issue. The second anyone contracted by the city starts digging there, the city is responsible for the clean up. That area was all oil refineries, and I think we were going to get stuck with a huge tab for the clean up. No one addressed that issue, and I think that was very important. We have heard the mayor over and over say how Wood Waste of Boston spent “millions” on the clean-up at the old city yards. This area is WORSE.
Also, a representative from the State should have absolutely been there NOT an Engineering Firm with a vested interest. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:18:47 PM
|
| What do you mean by no one addressed the issue? I believe a question was asked by the BoA about contamination and the response was that there was close to 10% of the project cost allocated to resolving contamination issues. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:24:56 PM
|
| Is that 10% of the $10 Million or 10% of the 5.5? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:38:38 PM
|
I dont recall how the question was phrased so I can't comment on how to interpret the 10%.
Keep in mind....the sewer replacement is the only part of the work that requires digging.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 3:38:11 PM
|
| Is the sewer on contaminated land? Is the $5.5 the price if we only do the sewer or would it be less than that? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 4:08:36 PM
|
If I remember correctly, the sewer was 5.5....and if Chelsea didnt participate, it would be less due to the reverse scope creep. Are you going to suggest that 550k isnt enough to handle the contamination?
Keep in mind, the soil is going to be covered by asphalt and used as a roadway....I would think that the cleanup requirements would be much less than if the area above the contamination were being used for a warehouse....or the even stricter requirements for housing. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 4:38:16 PM
|
| No, I wasn't going to suggest anything. I am trying to get a firmer grasp of the facts. That is all. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 4:44:29 PM
|
Nothing wrong with soaking up some knowledge.
Have you been able to identify a reason why the BoA would not believe the Mayor when he says he will not do the work if the agreements aren't in place? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 5:23:07 PM
|
| I can't speak for the BOA but I would think they felt the Administration didn't do their due diligence before bringing this issue to the city council by not already having an agreement in place. |
Edited by - massdee on 06/30/2010 5:23:46 PM |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 5:45:22 PM
|
That would have been an acceptable answer if the BoA had asked about agreements and the response was that they were going to do the work with or without an agreeement. That wasn't the case though....it was made clear that the work would not be done.
Questions were asked and answered about agreements, scope of work, grants, contaminated soil, bond ratings, future borrowing capacity, ownership of street, easements and potential relief from state and federal sources. Never once was the answer "I dont know". Due diligence can not be questioned.
Why did the BoA leave the taxpayers open to paying $1,000 per day fines and hundreds of thousands of dollars in higher interest? |
Edited by - just wondering on 06/30/2010 5:54:08 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
BOA 2010
