| Author |
 Topic  |
|
charm
Senior Member
264 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2012 : 09:36:39 AM
|
Everett man arrested, accused of robbing bank, then fleeing in taxi
Police have arrested an Everett man after he allegedly robbed a bank then fled in a taxi.
Police say that the Everett Credit Union in the 600 block of Broadway was robbed around 10 a.m. today by an unarmed man who fled in a waiting taxi. Police followed the taxi to Swan Street, where police say Jean Francisque, 28, got out and fled on foot. After a pursuit, Francisque was arrested outside 25 Wall St.
Police said they recovered $3,900 from the suspect. Francisque is scheduled to be arraigned today in Malden District Court.
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2012 : 08:58:27 AM
|
New planning director named
APRIL 01, 2012
Mayor Carlo DeMaria Jr. recently appointed James Errickson to the newly created position of executive director of planning and development. He will oversee the newly renamed Office of Planning and Development, relocated from the third floor to the second floor in City Hall. Marzie Galazka, who had been the city’s community development director, will serve as assistant director. Errickson came to Everett from Lowell, where he served as urban renewal project manager. A major focus of his work was managing the Hamilton Canal District project, a $700 million public-private effort to revitalize 15 acres in Lowell. - John Laidler |
 |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2012 : 07:07:45 AM
|
Top pay for part-timers
By Matt Byrne
Globe Correspondent / April 8, 2012
No member of the Medford City Council earned enough to make the list of the city’s top 100 earners, but councilors take home a tidy sum for their part-time posts.
President Robert A. Maiocco earned the highest amount, with $30,519.84 in gross pay during fiscal 2011, followed by vice president Frederick N. Dello Russo Jr. at $28,729.32.
Four councilors - Paul A. Camuso, Breanna Lungho-Koehn, Michael J. Marks, and Robert M. Penta - each were paid $27,529.32 in fiscal 2011, according to records provided by the city. One councilor, Mark J. Arena, who is no longer in office, earned $23,717.56.
In contrast, each of the 11 members of the Malden City Council takes home $17,500. In Somerville, 11 aldermen earn $25,000 each in addition to about $3,100 for communication and clerical expenses, according to city ordinances and a Somerville spokesman.
Until this year, Medford City Council pay was divided into base salary and expense pay. The expense payments in fiscal 2011 ranged from $8,400.08 for Maiocco, to $6,720, collected by Arena. The other five councilors each took home $7,800 for expenses.
But Maiocco said the ordinance governing pay was corrected in February, abolishing the division, even if it existed only on paper.
“There are no more expenses now. The ordinance was changed several weeks ago,’’ Maiocco said. “That was all taxable income.’’
Stephanie M. Burke, the city’s director of personnel and budget, said the accounting change “cleans up’’ the books and has no impact on the councilors’ pay.
“They’re making the same amount of money,’’ Burke said. “Now, no one’s looking at that line and saying, ‘Oh you got that in travel, in expense?’ Now it’s one line item.’’
She said the term “expense’’ was left over from years past, when councilors were paid two checks, one with taxes withheld for their base pay, and one for the expenses with no taxes removed. A Department of Revenue review several years ago halted the practice, Maiocco said. No councilor has been paid untaxed income for at least five years, he estimated, and all council compensation is now taxed up front.
In the same February ordinance change, the councilors declined to give themselves a pay raise but approved retroactive increases of 2 percent and 3 percent for 39 non-union employees covering the last two years.
An additional 4 percent increase is set to take effect July 1 for the same group, which includes department heads and other managers who do not collectively bargain for their salaries.
© Copyright 2012 Globe Newspaper Company.
The article's a bit confusing as it seems to indicate that the Medford councilors all get paid the same amount now but lists different compensation amounts for different councillors. But if the Everett City Council is seriously going to consider getting paid for expenses, I'd suggest that they pick up the phone and call somebody in Medford to find out exactly how they shouldn't go about it. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 10:45:42 AM
|
Audit finds Saugus water funds misused
No theft alleged; lack of bidding also cited
By Kathy McCabe | GLOBE STAFF APRIL 29, 2012
An audit has found that Saugus officials violated municipal finance laws by using water and sewer revenues to pay $1.4 million in employee wages, benefits, and other unrelated expenses, and did not seek public bids for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of public works repair projects over the last two years.
The audit performed by Powers & Sullivan, a Wakefield accounting firm, said the town tapped water and sewer funds to pay the salaries of 3 1/2 positions in the public works and cemetery departments. Funds also were used to repair streets and sidewalks, remove trees, and activate a sprinkler system for rotaries, parks, buildings, and athletic fields, the report states.
Water and sewer revenues are paid into an enterprise account, which by law can only be used to pay for services directly related to those services.
The town also labeled too many repairs to water and sewer lines, roads, and sidewalks as emergencies, thereby circumventing public bidding laws, the audit found. Included were “intentional violations of finance laws that led to misleading and fraudulent accounting’’ of town finances.
The findings, reviewed in public last Wednesday, prompted town officials to notify the state inspector general’s office, which enforces public bidding laws. The state Department of Revenue is monitoring town finances and requiring additional financial reporting, such as monthly budget reports.
‘Everything I did as town manager was done to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the residents,’ said Andrew Bisignani.
“Our interest is in making sure the town is aware of the problem,’’ said Robert Bliss, a DOR spokesman. “We’re going to work with the town to solve whatever financial difficulties may arise from this.’’
Allegations of financial violations surfaced in January, after Town Manager Andrew Bisignani retired. Three employees - Town Accountant Joan Regan, Treasurer Wendy Hatch, and Assistant Purchasing Agent Michelle Wendell - raised concerns about improper charges and bidding irregularities, Town Counsel John Vasapolli said.
“They came to me with concerns that the law wasn’t being followed,’’ said Vasapolli, who at the time was serving as the temporary town manager. “I informed the Board of Selectmen, who asked that I notify the state DOR.’’
The DOR suggested the town conduct a forensic audit - a detailed analysis of specific accounts, Bliss said. The audit performed by Powers & Sullivan states that unnamed employees told auditors they knew they were breaking the law, but acted at the direction of Bisignani, the town manager for nine years, who is now the town administrator in Nahant. Payments for municipal services are made by the town manager, the town accountant, and the town treasurer, as required by municipal finance law.
“We were informed numerous times by these employees that they knew processing these transactions were clear violations of law, but stated they only did so under the specific instruction of the former Town Manager,’’ the audit states. “Although there may have been pressure to process these transactions, it does not relieve them of their legal responsibility to comply with the same laws and regulations,’’ the auditors wrote.
Violations of municipal finance laws are punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or one year in jail.
Scott Crabtree, the current town manager, said it is too soon to say if the town will pursue criminal charges. He estimates there could be a deficit of $3 million to $4 million as a result of misappropriations.
“We will know more once the audit is fully complete,’’ he said after Wednesday’s meeting. “We’ll then discuss its findings, and if necessary notify the appropriate authorities. It’s my duty to protect the town.’’
Despite the audit’s findings, the town still is using water and sewer revenues to fund the 3 1/2 public works positions, Crabtree said.
“We’ve accepted the findings and now we must decide what corrective action to take,’’ he said. “We may have to make adjustments, to make sure that if they are being paid with water and sewer funds, they are working on water and sewer.’’
In a statement, Bisignani defended his tenure as town manager.
“Everything I did as town manager was done to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the residents of Saugus and was done with the knowledge of other town officials,’’ the statement read. “Following long-established custom and practice, when crucial or emergency services needed to be provided, they were paid for with whatever funds the town had available. Even the auditors, who are far from independent, do not suggest that the services were not necessary or were in fact not provided. Nor do they suggest that I benefited personally from any of the supposed improper actions. Their conclusions of intentional wrongdoing by me or other town officials are unsupported and fatally flawed.’’
Regan and Wendell did not return calls from the Globe seeking comment. Hatch declined to comment when reached by telephone.
Vasapolli said he has not seen any evidence that town officials personally benefited from the transactions.
The report on water and sewer accounts is the first of three that auditors will release. Two others will provide more details of alleged bid violations, employees’ stipends charged to expense accounts, and the use of cellphones and town fuel pumps, the audit states.
Public Works director Joe Attubato said he is puzzled by the audit’s findings about his department. “If there is a water break that causes a sidewalk to break up, or whatever, we get it fixed and I send the bill to the town accountant,’’ said Attubato, a town employee nearly 50 years. “It’s the way I’ve been doing it for years. Now, all of a sudden, it’s not accepted. I don’t understand it.’’
Attubato said Saugus had over 30 water breaks last year, which required emergency repair. He has a list of quotes from companies and when a break occurs, he calls the contractor on the list with the lowest price, he said. “I would call the contractor and that would be it. We have to respond to emergencies.’’
State law requires communities to solicit competitive bids for projects estimated to cost $25,000 or more. Projects estimated at $5,000 to $24,999 must solicit three bid proposals. Any contract valued at $5,000 or less requires the use of “sound business practice,’’ the law states.
Attubato estimated that most of the water breaks in Saugus last year cost $5,000 or less to repair. Larger ones, on Route 1, probably cost between $15,000 and $20,000, he said.
Attubato said budget cuts have trimmed the DPW workforce from 34 employees 10 years ago to 18 today. He said town employees are used first to do repairs to streets, sidewalks, tree removal, and other public works jobs. But when funds run low or the department can’t keep pace with work loads, he is forced to hire outside contractors.
“If we can do the work ourselves, we do,’’ Attubato said. “But with so much going on, and so few workers, we have had a lot done by contractors, but I have no idea how the payments are made to them.’’
Kathy McCabe can be reached at kmccabe@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @GlobeKMcCabe.
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 10:53:18 AM
|
Saugus —
A firm reviewing the town’s accounting transactions reported uncovering sufficient evidence of irregularities that misstated the financial position of the water, sewer and general funds.
Click here to see the report
You must be logged in to see this link.
On April 17, Powers & Sullivan released its report to the Board of Selectmen on the expenditures and payroll posted to the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds over the last two years. The certified public accountant firm documented a number of alleged violations after looking over the transactions and interviewing numerous officials, employees and former Town Manager Andrew Bisignani.
“What we have discovered is that there is clear evidence to support the fact that there are significant violations of municipal finance laws, rules and regulations,” the report reads. “Our findings lead us to believe that there was a systematic, knowledgeable and intentional violation of finance laws that led to misleading and fraudulent accounting of the actual nature of the financial transactions for the years under review.”
The Board of Selectmen hired Powers & Sullivan after Town Accountant Joan Regan and several other town employees approached then Temporary Town Manager John Vasapolli with concerns about violations of finance law that occurred in recent years.
Focusing on just fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012, Powers & Sullivan reported a number of financial violations that took place over that stretch.
They include:
· More than $1.4 million of general fund related payroll, vendor expenses, fringe benefits and indirect overhead charges that were posted to enterprise fund appropriations.
· Several employee salaries were budgeted and charged to enterprise funds (water and sewer) even though they didn’t work on enterprise operations.
In the sewer account, two employees worked for highway, one for forestry and a half-time employee for the Cemetery Department, resulting in more than $100,000 in improper payroll charges.
On the water side, the town budgeted half a position in the Water Enterprise Fund when the employee worked for the Highway Department, in addition to charging 100 percent of a Cemetery Department employee’s payroll to the water expense appropriation instead of the general fund.
· Employee benefits and indirect costs charged to the enterprise funds were overstated due to shifting of vendor and salary expenses.
· “Hundreds of thousands” of vendor expenses weren’t properly bid, with procedures circumvented by declaring that routine expenses were emergency procurements.
· Instances of charging payroll to non-payroll appropriations “for what we believe was an intentional act to deceive the true nature of the type of expense being incurred.”
Examples of charging payroll to revenue accounts.
· A “significant” number of violations involving payroll stipends paid to employees that weren’t authorized or appropriated.
· Posting journal entries at the end of fiscal years to cover up appropriation deficits.
· Repairs for certain employee’s automobiles authorized and charged to town and enterprise appropriations.
· Notified of lax controls over town fuel pumps with many employees permitted to fill up their personal vehicles, though Powers & Sullivan acknowledged it has yet to review these specific transactions.
Powers & Sullivan reported a total of $991,000 in general fund expenses were incorrectly posted to the Sewer Enterprise Fund over the last two fiscal years. A review of the Water Enterprise Fund turned up $455,000 in general fund expenses posted there in fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012.
Going forward, the audit firm recommended the town correct the activity and adjust future budgets to reflect the true cost.
Reactions
At last week’s Finance Committee meeting, Town Manager Scott Crabtree cautioned it appears the Department of Revenue is requiring the town to absorb the $1.4 million in payroll and other expenses that were improperly charged to the enterprise funds.
“That will create an operating deficit for fiscal 2012,” Crabtree said, adding the shortfall could get worse if the DOR forces the town to reclassify line items in the water and sewer funds that go back farther than fiscal 2011.
In its report, Powers & Sullivan noted town employees stated they knew it was illegal to process the transactions but did so under specific instructions from Bisignani.
“It is apparent, based on the evidence we reviewed, that these significant financial violations of laws and regulation was an effort to intentionally cover up the actual nature of the transactions with full knowledge that they were actual violations,” the Powers & Sullivan report reads.
Bisignani rejected the notion he deliberately set out to violate finance laws or directed town employees to break the law.
“That’s not true, there was never any intent to deceive or lie to anyone,” Bisignani said. “I did what was necessary to maintain and continue providing services for the town, there was no personal gain.”
Bisignani added he wasn’t familiar with a lot of the alleged finance violations Powers & Sullivan spelled out in the report.
“Most of these issues involve the Department of Public Works,” Bisignani said. “The town has a very qualified DPW superintendent. I didn’t tell him how to run his department. He allocates his resources how he sees fit.”
Calls to DPW Superintendent Joseph Attubato weren’t immediately returned.
Bisignani also protested the auditors didn’t give him an opportunity to respond to many of the violations detailed in the report. He told the Advertiser he needed more time to digest the full report before commenting further.
Board of Selectmen Chairman Michael Serino said he was extremely disappointed in the violations Powers & Sullivan uncovered.
“I’m surprised by the extent of the violations,” Serino said. “I’m not happy about this, I feel the town manager lied to the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee and to Town Meeting members for many years,” Serino said.
The water and sewer report is the first in a series of three reports Powers & Sullivan plans to furnish to town officials. Subsequent reports will focus on procurement and payroll issues in recent years.
Read more: UPDATE: Saugus audit details financial violations - Saugus, MA - Saugus Advertiser You must be logged in to see this link.
|
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 3:06:47 PM
|
Imagine holding what you believe to be a winning lottery ticket worth $1 million, only to find out that the ticket was printed in error and is worth nothing more than a good story to tell the local news.
That's what happened to Paul Pasquarosa of Boston, an unemployed father of two, who spent $10 on a lottery ticket the day before his birthday. (Hat tip to Time Newsfeed.)
Upon uncovering three red words on a scratch-off Cashword ticket, Pasquarosa believed he'd won the lottery's $1 million prize, according to CBS Boston.
“I’m looking at it; I have three red words. It says three red words wins a million dollars. I called my son and told him things were gonna be OK,” Pasquarosa told CBS Boston.
But Pasquarosa's joy was short-lived. When he showed the ticket to his lawyer, it was revealed that there was a "offset in the printing," according to CBS. Evidently, of the 20 million tickets printed, 2,200 of them were defective.
According to Time, lottery officials attempted to prevent the misprinted tickets from being sold. Pasquarosa's ticket was worth nothing.
This isn't the first time a misprint on a lottery ticket has caused a serious let-down.
Ann Marie Curcio sued the Florida Lottery for breach of contract after they dismissed her "winning" lottery ticket -- a ticket Curcio believed was worth $500,000, but was in fact printed in error, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The case has yet to go to trial, according to a local television station.
Pasquarosa's case might be exceptional, but stories of down-on-their-luck Americans playing the lottery in the hopes of a windfall are all too common. Financial hardship seems to have driven more lotto-ticket sales in recent years, as the job market has remained sluggish and wages have failed to rise for most workers.
That, in turn, has led critics to label the lottery a "regressive tax" -- a financial mechanism that tends to draw the most money out of the poorest people.
If you think you have a defective lottery ticket, it can be reported to the Lottery’s Claims/Legal Department, according to CBS.
WATCH: Misprinted Lottery Ticket Fools Paul Pasquarosa Into Thinking He Struck Gold
You need to download the latest version of flash player to use this player
Need Help?
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 11:04:01 AM
|
Finding healthy savings
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent / May 17, 2012
Amesbury, Chelsea, and Newburyport have adopted union-backed changes to their employee health insurance plans that they say will bring much-needed savings.
The changes in Amesbury and Newburyport, to take effect July 1, involve moving from a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts plan with no deductibles to one that has deductibles and higher copayments.
Chelsea is adopting similar changes, and will be charging employees a larger share of premiums as part of its adoption of a city-run health plan July 1. For more than two decades, Chelsea has been part of Boston’s health plan.
Amesbury’s health-care changes were ratified by city unions last month after having been negotiated by the city and a committee of union representatives.
“I’m very pleased that the employees were part of the decision-making, and agreed to make very significant changes to the health plan,” said Mayor Thatcher W. Kezer III.
Amesbury last fall negotiated an agreement that instituted a three-tier system for copayments based on the relative costs of the doctors and hospitals selected. Kezer said those changes were projected to save the city approximately $350,000 next year. He said with the new changes, the city is expecting to save about $850,000.
In Newburyport, the switch to the lower-cost plan was recommended by a union committee, approved by Mayor Donna D. Holaday, and then ratified by the various unions, according to Holaday, who estimated it will save the city $180,000 next fiscal year.
Referring to the members of the union panel, the Public Employee Committee, Holaday said, “I am so pleased because they really have done a nice job in terms of understanding what is in the best interests of the city.”
Both Amesbury and Newburyport purchase their insurance through the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association, which made available the new lower-cost plan.
Haverhill also reached agreement with unions recently on health care changes that officials estimate will save the city $1.1 million annually.
The recent changes are part of a growing number adopted by cities and towns since the state last July passed a law that gives municipalities new powers to revamp their health-insurance plans without having to secure union agreement.
The local-option law sets out a process for municipalities to either join the state’s Group Insurance Commission, or to make changes to deductibles, copays or other features of health plans that are comparable to those offered by the GIC.
As of March 19, 127 communities and regional school districts statewide had taken steps to adopt the law or to use traditional collective bargaining to achieve savings in their insurance costs, according to a report by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Since passage of the law, seven area communities — Lowell, Lynnfield, Marblehead, Medford, Salem, Somerville, and Wakefield — have joined the GIC, joining six others — Groveland, Lawrence, Melrose, Saugus, Stoneham, Swampscott, Wenham, and Winthrop — that had previously done so, according to the GIC website.
Other communities have opted to make changes to their own health plans. Among them are Beverly, in addition to Amesbury, Chelsea, Haverhill, and Newburyport.
Chelsea and Newburyport both adopted the state law, while Amesbury has yet to do so. But all three cities achieved their health-plan changes without going through the formal process that the new law provides, which includes a 30-day union bargaining period.
Officials from all three communities said, however, that the law proved a valuable tool for them.
Holaday said Newburyport’s union representatives “knew we could take this out of their hands if they couldn’t reach an agreement. It was very motivating for them to take the task very seriously, and they did really solid work.”
Amesbury’s Kezer said the state law provided “the leverage to create an agreement.”
He noted that the city’s unions four years ago agreed to increase the employee share of health insurance premiums. With passage of the state law last year, Kezer decided that rather than moving to adopt it right away, he would seek to work with unions first to see whether they could agree to additional savings.
“My position was if we can negotiate an agreement, I won’t need to file for the legislation to accept the law. I kept that option in my back pocket.”
Kezer said that as a result of a drop in claims that he attributes to an employee wellness program the city initiated last year, Amesbury’s premiums would not have risen next fiscal year even without the two negotiated changes to the plan. But he said with those changes, the premiums will drop, resulting in the $850,000 savings for the city.
Subscribers, meanwhile, should save just under $200,000 in total premiums, though officials note that those who seek frequent care will feel the impact of higher copays.
Holaday said Newburyport considered switching to the GIC, but dropped the idea after concluding it would not save the city more than it could achieve on its own. And, she said, the city has a longstanding relationship with the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association, “and that’s where we wanted to stay.”
The changes in health coverage that Chelsea is implementing will save the city just over $1 million next fiscal year, according to City Manager Jay Ash. The overhaul was ratified by union members after the city negotiated the details with a committee of union representatives.
“I’ve been working on this for almost a decade now, and I’m happy we were able to consensus on a program that will save the city substantial dollars and still provide employees with outstanding health care coverage,” Ash said.
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 8:45:41 PM
|
| I wish these articles would better spell out if the savings these communities are realizing are from year to year or if they are savings from the amounts that they would have had to pay in any future years. For example, according to the new budget, Everett will be paying slightly more for healthcare in FY13 than in FY12 even though a new health care agreement will be place. But, it's very likely that the increase would have been a lot more without the new agreement; so I guess it's a savings in that respect. |
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 2:38:22 PM
|
| CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PUT THE ARTICLE OUT HERE IN TODAY'S GLOBE NORTH ABOUT THE ALDERMAN AND THE MAYOR |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 8:31:29 PM
|
First of all, I’m not sure why this “long” article had to make it to the Boston Globe. Someone must have paid a pretty penny for that, and of course unnecessarily. That said, even though the additional exemption would help me personally, all they are doing is covering up all the overspending. The well WILL run dry, it’s just a matter of time and the people that allow this crazy spending to continue, will have this on their hands. You can’t keep covering it up. The majority of the residents here are renters and will leave once their Everett free services are dried up. It’s the long-term residents that had better start paying attention because these homeowners will not have their homes 3-5 years from now, the taxes will be so out of control....so...enjoy it now.
Everett aldermen shoot down mayor’s tax relief plan
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent / July 19, 2012
Mayor Carlo DeMaria Jr. is not dropping his bid to increase Everett’s residential property tax exemption even though the city’s Board of Aldermen recently rejected the plan for the second time this year.
On June 25, the board voted 5-2 against authorizing the city to seek special legislation allowing Everett to increase its existing 20 percent exemption for owner-occupied homes to 30 percent.
The Common Council had voted unanimously to approve the request on the same night.
Were the city to secure passage of the special act, a vote by the City Council — both the Board of Aldermen and the Common Council — would still be needed to increase the exemption.
The council decides whether to offer an exemption and how large it should be when it sets the tax rate each November.
Melissa Murphy, DeMaria’s chief of staff, said the mayor does not plan to pursue the issue further this year, noting that even if the aldermen reversed course, it is unlikely the city could win passage of the special act before it sets the fiscal 2013 tax rate.
But, she said, “we are definitely going to offer the petition again next year.”
DeMaria and other supporters had argued that the proposal, which was similarly rejected by aldermen in March after earning Common Council approval, would provide needed additional tax relief to those who own and occupy homes.
Commercial property owners would also benefit, they said, because the mayor had proposed that if the city increased the residential exemption, it should also reduce the amount of the tax burden that it shifts onto businesses.
Businesses pay 75 percent more in taxes than they would with a single tax rate; DeMaria’s proposal would have reduced that to 65 percent.
“I am very disappointed that this piece failed to pass the Board of Aldermen,” DeMaria said in a statement following the June 25 meeting. “I know that this would have been a positive thing for the residents and business owners of Everett and I applaud the Common Council for their vote.”
State law allows municipalities to offer an exemption of up to 20 percent of the average value of all residential properties in the community as a form of tax relief. The exemption can be provided only to owner-occupied dwellings.
Residential exemptions are in place in 13 communities, including Chelsea, Everett, Malden, and Somerville, as well as the West Barnstable Fire District. Three cities, including Somerville, have secured special legislation to increase their exemptions to 30 percent.
Murphy said providing the proposed tax relief for owner-occupied and commercial properties would not result in any loss of revenue for Everett because of the higher taxes it would receive from non-owner occupied homes through an increase in the tax rate.
Of the city’s 8,430 residential properties, 4,392 qualify for an exemption.
Were the city to move to the 30 percent residential exemption and adopt the proposal to ease the commercial tax burden, officials estimate the tax bill of an owner-occupied, average single family home valued at $243,500 would rise by $136 this year, but the increase would be $65 less than what it would be without the changes.
For a single-family home that is not owner-occupied, the tax bill would rise $823 with the changes, $565 more than it would go up without them.
The owner of a downtown store with an average value of $420,300 would see a $252 decrease in their taxes with the combined changes, but a $904 increase without them.
Ward 2 Councilor Mike Mangan voted for the increased exemption and said he is disappointed by the outcome.
“This would have helped commercial businesses as well as the person who lives in their property and takes care of their property. . . . The only people who were going to be hurt were people that don’t live in their property – basically absentee landlords and people who invest in property,” he said.
But Ward 3 Alderman Michael K. Marchese, who had been an original proponent of the residential exemption when the city adopted it about a decade ago, voted against increasing the exemption and said he would even favor eliminating it.
Marchese said the exemption “was never meant to be permanent” but instead was intended to temporarily ease the burden on homeowners who were seeing steep increases in their taxes due to inflationary home values at the time.
With home values now at more stable levels, the exemption only serves to discourage people from investing in multifamily properties and could mean higher rents for tenants, added Marchese, who said that as a commercial and rental property owner, he stood to lose however the board voted.
Ward 6 Alderman Sal Sachetta also voted against increasing the exemption.
Sachetta had supported the proposal in March because it was tied to the mayor’s plan to reduce the tax burden on businesses, something he believes is needed.
But Sachetta changed his stance because he said the Common Council would not go along with cuts the aldermen had sought to make in the fiscal 2013 budget.
Without the budget cuts, Sachetta said. the effect of the proposed changes would be to burden the owners of properties that do not qualify for the exemption.
“They are going to feel the brunt of the whole thing,” he said.
John Laidler can be reached at laidler@globe.com.
© Copyright 2012 Globe Newspaper Company.
You must be logged in to see this link.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2012 : 11:44:14 AM
|
Why is the City hiring an outside company for this? What is this costing the taxpayers now?? We have Marzie Galaska and the new hire from Somerville (Jaime Ericsson) who is above Marzie. Just open the window and throw the money right out.
What's wrong with the Capital Improvement Plan??
EVERETT
Funds needed for Street Work
The city recently signed a contract with WordTech Engineering of Woburn to assist in seeking state and federal funds to upgrade Ferry and Elm Streets. The company will collect traffic data, including statistics on accidents, for the two major arteries. It will also conduct field observations on traffic flow. The city will use the information and preliminary design documents in applying for transportation grants to help pay for the project, including costs of construction, engineering, and additional design work.
JOHN LAIDLER
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2012 : 1:05:24 PM
|
Same company that the city is using for Beacham Street. You know, the one that came in early last fall to strongarm a vote on an appropriation for design services for Beacham Street so that the city might be eligible for a grant last year. BTW, they didn't get it; maybe this year.
I'd guess that the capital improvement appropriation will be used for this project, Tails...to pay for the consultant. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2012 : 07:30:27 AM
|
Aldermen want more details on developers fee
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent / August 12, 2012
Using one alderman’s phrase, it may have been like putting the cart before the horse.
Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria Jr.’s proposal to charge large-scale developers a linkage fee to help offset the impacts of their projects has been stalled by the Board of Aldermen, which wants to see details of the plan before it is sent to Beacon Hill for approval.
The City Council’s Joint Committee on Rules and Ordinances, with members from the Common Council and the Board of Aldermen, is expected to take up the proposal next month.
Ward 4 Alderman L. Charles DiPerri, who made the reference to jumping the gun and moved for the proposal to be kicked back to the committee, said that before voting to send the home-rule petition to the Legislature, he would like to see at least a rough outline of the measure. Having city officials craft an ordinance only after the special legislation is passed would be the wrong way to go, he said.
DiPerri said he also has concerns about whether the timing is right for a linkage fee, given the difficult economic climate. But he said he would be willing to support one “if it’s something that works and can be flexible.” He said the flexibility could involve allowing the fee to be waived “to get certain types of development in the city.”
The mayor said his intention is to assess the fee only to large-scale developers, those whose projects “may significantly impact the neighborhood, who may create more traffic, or if tractor-trailers are involved that may be impacting the road system.
“I don’t want to hurt the small business owner,” DeMaria said. “If there is a mom or pop that wants to renovate their storefront . . . or the housing above their [store], we’re not going to ask for a linkage fee.”
DeMaria said he is confident the fee would not make the city unattractive to business development.
“Everett is really a unique place to do business for these companies coming in here,” he said. “They are leaving communities farther north because of our proximity to Boston . . . I don’t think this will drive businesses out.”
A number of other nearby cities have linkage fees, Everett officials noted, including Boston, since 1983; Medford, since 1989; and Somerville, since 2005.
James Errickson, the city’s director of planning and development, said the intent of a linkage fee is to “offset the impact that a new development would have on the community.” The mayor’s plan calls for a one-time fee that developers would have to pay to help the city address the impact of their projects on streets, parks, and recreational facilities.
He said linkage fees also help forge a partnership between a big commercial, industrial, or residential developer and the city.
“It’s the first of, hopefully, a series of many investments within the community that a commercial entity would make, the idea being that there is a shared commitment to improving the community,” Errickson said.
The Planning Board often requires developers to undertake traffic and other improvements to mitigate a project’s impacts, but Errickson said those measures tend to be limited to the immediate area. He said the linkage fee would be applied to all developments meeting the criteria, and the revenue could be used for improvements across the city.
Ward 2 Alderman Michael J. Mangan said he supports establishing a linkage fee to help the city recoup the costs it bears when large-scale projects come into Everett, particularly those like multiunit condominiums that can impact a neighborhood. He said he thought sending the matter to committee was the right move, however.
“I think it’s a good thing to get the ordinance out of committee the way everyone feels it should be before going to the Legislature,” he said. That way, if the special act is approved, “we can move forward. I wouldn’t want to waste everyone’s time crafting legislation and having it come back and all of a sudden we can’t agree in committee.”
This is the second time Everett’s mayor has tried to get a linkage fee passed. DeMaria in 2009 received City Council approval to seek the legislation, but the House clerk’s office returned the bill with suggested changes. The mayor then offered a revised bill that was rejected by the Common Council on an 8-to-7 vote last November.
John Laidler can be reached at jlaidler@globe.com.
© Copyright 2012 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2012 : 10:53:44 AM
|
Future council pay stirs debate in Everett
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent | August 26, 2012
As Everett prepares to elect its new City Council next year, how much to pay its members has become a subject of debate.
Under a charter change approved by voters last year, Everett in 2014 is replacing its bicameral City Council — composed of the seven-member Board of Aldermen and an 18-member Common Council — with a single 11-member council.
By a 4-3 vote late last month, aldermen established a $25,000 annual salary for the future councilors, $10,000 more than the $15,000 proposed by the Finance Committee, which is made up of three aldermen and five common councilors. Critics contend the figure is too high, and one alderman — Robert Van Campen — publicly reversed his stance, saying he now supports the $15,000 figure.
“My thinking in the moment was that [$25,000] was the number that would allow us to attract the best candidates for these positions,” said Van Campen, who also is a member of the Finance Committee. But he said he concluded that $15,000 was more appropriate since it is “in line with what similarly-sized communities are paying their councilors.”
The proposed $25,000 salary was to come before the Common Council last Monday. But action was delayed when city solicitor Colleen Mejia determined the measure had not been passed by aldermen at the July 30 meeting because it did not receive the two-thirds vote the new charter requires.
The issue could resurface as early as the aldermen’s meeting Monday. Ward 3 Alderman Michael K. Marchese, who supported the $25,000 figure, said he plans to propose $18,500 as a compromise he hopes could attract the two-thirds majority needed in both council bodies.
Everett aldermen now earn $7,200 a year, and common councilors $5,500. All are eligible to receive city health insurance, but that perk will end in 2014 under the new charter.
In other cities of similar size, councilors or aldermen receive: $4,000 in Melrose; $8,000 in Chelsea; $10,000 in Salem ($10,500 for the president), and $11,700 in Beverly ($12,300 for the president). Melrose councilors also earn a $1,000 annual stipend. Councilors are eligible for health insurance in Beverly, Melrose, and Salem, but not in Chelsea.
In Revere, a large community nearby, city councilors earn $15,461, $17,231 for the council president. They also get an annual stipend of $4,800 and are eligible for health insurance and longevity pay based on their years of public service.
Councilors earn $19,729 in Medford ($22,120 for president) and $15,302 in Lynn ($16,302 for president). They also receive annual stipends of $7,800 in Medford ($8,400 for the president) and $8,700 in Lynn, where they are eligible for municipal health insurance. In Peabody, councilors receive $7,466, plus an $1,800 annual stipend and health insurance.
In its vote last month, the Everett aldermen opted not to follow a Finance Committee recommendation that the future council president receive a $2,500 annual stipend.
While the issue of councilor pay has proved controversial, a separate 5-2 vote by aldermen last month to raise the pay of the mayor from $85,000 to $115,000, effective in 2014, has not generated similar debate. The Common Council concurred with the change by a 16-0 vote last Monday. The raise awaits final approval in both bodies.
The first city councilors under Everett’s new charter will be chosen in the November 2013 city election. In the event the City Council fails to set new salaries, the new charter provides that future councilors would receive the $7,200 salary that aldermen now earn, according to city clerk Michael Matarazzo.
Ward 5 Common Councilor Rosa DiFlorio said that, following a study she undertook of the pay issue as a member of the Finance Committee, she believed the future councilors should earn $22,000 to $29,000.
DiFlorio said that she based that in part on the full compensation package for councilors in other cities, notably Revere.
“Other communities have expense accounts, they have longevity, they have health benefits. We don’t have any of that,” she said of the new council.
DiFlorio said her proposed salary range is a fair one for people who are qualified and work hard.
As a compromise, DiFlorio said she would support a salary in the range of $18,000 to $25,000.
Marchese said that while willing to compromise, he believed $25,000 was a fair salary, based on DiFlorio’s study. In addition to being in line with Revere, he said the salary would allow Everett to attract quality candidates.
A salary of $25,000 “could bring a young lawyer into the running, maybe an accountant,” he said.
But Common Council president D. J. Napolitano said he believes the $25,000 salary figure is excessive and would not win support.
“I feel $15,000 for a part-time job is more than adequate,” he said. “$25,000 is practically a full-time job. At this stage in the game, we are not here to burden the taxpayers. I think $15,000 is more than generous and will still attract that quality of candidates people are looking for.”
Ward 2 Common Councilor Jason Marcus also said he believes $25,000 is too much.
“Some people in City Hall are making in the low $30,000s, working full time,” he said. “How do I justify that to people?”
John Laidler can be reached at laidler@globe.com.
© Copyright 2012 Globe Newspaper Company. |
|
|
|
Jane
Senior Member
102 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2012 : 07:15:35 AM
|
Prison Inmate Indicted in Scheme to Steal Nearly $50,000 in Unemployment Benefits While Incarcerated
Multiple Defendants Allegedly Assisted in Scheme to Fraudulently Collect Benefits During Incarceration
BOSTON – A prison inmate and two others have been charged in an alleged scheme to fraudulently collect nearly $50,000 in unemployment benefits during his incarceration, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today. This case is the result of an investigation referred to the Attorney General’s Office by the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development’s Department of Unemployment Assistance (EOLWD\DUA).
“We allege these defendants conspired to fraudulently collect unemployment benefits on behalf of an ineligible and incarcerated beneficiary,” AG Coakley said. “Many people depend on these benefits just to make ends meet. These allegations are a disturbing example of the lengths people will go to defraud the system.”
“The successful prosecution of these charges is the result of continued collaboration between the Department of Unemployment Assistance and the Attorney General,” said Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development Joanne F. Goldstein. “We will continue to identify, investigate, and prosecute suspected fraud to protect legitimate claimants, employers, and the integrity of our system.”
A Suffolk County Grand Jury returned indictments against three defendants on August 23. The defendants are charged as follows:
Daniel Mullaney, 42, of Everett:
Unemployment Fraud (71 counts)
Larceny Over $250 by False Pretenses (2 counts)
Conspiracy to Commit Unemployment Fraud (2 counts)
Conspiracy to Commit Larceny (2 counts)
Habitual Offender
Derek McCarthy, 34, of Somerville:
Unemployment Fraud (56 counts)
Larceny Over $250 by False Pretenses
Conspiracy to Commit Unemployment Fraud
Conspiracy to Commit Larceny
Stacey Carlin, 42, of Everett:
Unemployment Fraud (6 counts)
Larceny Over $250 by False Pretenses
Conspiracy to Commit Unemployment Fraud
Conspiracy to Commit Larceny (2 counts)
Authorities allege the three defendants conspired to steal thousands of dollars in unemployment benefits on behalf of Daniel Mullaney during his incarceration between March 2010 and August 2011. The alleged scheme was initially detected and investigated by the Department of Correction and referred to EOLWD\DUA.
According to authorities, Mullaney applied for and began receiving unemployment benefits from EOLWD\DUA in October 2009, after being separated from his employer and arranged for deposits to be made in the bank account of his ex-wife Stacey Carlin.
In March 2010, Mullaney was incarcerated in state prison on separate charges. During this time, Mullaney allegedly maintained contact with Carlin through phone calls while in custody, providing instructions as to what to say and how to proceed with his unemployment claim. Authorities allege that Carlin falsely certified Mullaney’s unemployment claims for six weeks from March 2010 through April 2010, notifying EOLWD\DUA that he was not working, that he was able to work and was available for work.
Authorities allege that Derek McCarthy, a friend and former fellow inmate of Mullaney, also assisted in the scheme. Following his release from custody in June 2010, McCarthy allegedly opened a bank account over the Internet for the purposes of fraudulently depositing Mullaney’s unemployment benefits. According to authorities Mullaney maintained contact with McCarthy through phone calls while in custody to discuss the false certifications and provide answers to the security questions necessary to provide certification via Internet to EOLWD\DUA. McCarthy allegedly falsely certified Mullaney’s unemployment claims for 56 weeks from June 2010 through July 2011, notifying EOLWD\DUA that he was not working, that he was able to work and was available for work.
As a result of this alleged scheme, the defendants fraudulently collected unemployment benefits totaling $49,953 during Mullaney’s incarceration.
The defendants are scheduled for arraignment in Suffolk Superior Court on September 5.
AG Coakley’s Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division works to protect consumers and the integrity of the insurance system by investigating and prosecuting those who commit fraud against all types of insurers, including the Commonwealth’s unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation system. The prosecution of insurance fraud helps prevent the increase in premiums and taxes that are the result of fraudulent insurance claims. In 2011, the Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division obtained more than $5.5 million in restitution orders in 33 matters.
To report unemployment fraud to the EOLWD\DUA, call the agency’s toll free fraud hotline at (800) 354-9927 anytime, 24 hours a day. Callers may remain anonymous.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant Attorney General Joshua Pakstis AG Coakley’s Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division with assistance from investigator Christopher Gabriel Attorney General’s Office and investigator Mark St. Onge from EOLWD\DUA.
#########
Follow us on Twitter – View our Photos – Visit our Website
Complementary Content
Supplementary Content
Martha Coakley
Attorney General
Media Contact
Grant Woodman (AGO)
(617) 727-2543
Alison Harris (EOLWD)
(617) 626-7121
WHO THINKS OF THESE THINGS. |
|
|
|
charm
Senior Member
264 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2012 : 8:21:58 PM
|
Boston A convicted felon stood before the court Wednesday accused of committing another crime while doing state time.
Team 5 investigates first exposed Dan Mullaney, a career criminal, who investigators say managed to rack up almost $50,000 in unemployment benefits from behind bars.
His ex-wife, Stacey-Carlin, of Everett and a former inmate, Derek McCarthy, of Somerville allegedly helped in the alleged online scheme.
Assistant Attorney General Joshua Pakstis said, "Both Stacey Carlin and Derek McCarthy assisted Mr. Mullaney in committing unemployment fraud by pretending to be Mr. Mullaney and certifying to the Department of Unemployment Assistance that Mr. Mullaney was able and available for work."
According to state investigators, Carlin helped Mullaney collect unemployment benefits for about six weeks. McCarthy allegedly took over the operation that lasted for about a year and a half -- all the while Mullaney sat in prison.
Carlin and McCarthy are accused of logging onto the state's website using Dan Mullaney's information and answering security questions to file Mullaney's unemployment benefits.
McCarthy didn't show up for court, and Carlin wasn't talking. But Carlin's lawyer, Alfred Farese, said his client had no idea what she was doing was a crime.
"Her husband said it was all legal, so for five weeks she did it, and when she found out he wasn't going to be released from jail she had nothing to do with it," Farese said.
Mullaney, Carlin and McCarthy face multiple counts of unemployment fraud, larceny over $250 and conspiracy charges.
McCarthy didn't show up for his arraignment, so the court issued a warrant for his arrest. Carlin was released, and Mullaney remains in custody on unrelated charges.
The secretary for labor and workforce development told Team 5 that the division of unemployment assistance does cross checks to try to prevent a situation like this from happening. She said the administration does not tolerate fraud and abuse and DUA continues to improve protocols and processes in order to ensure the integrity of the system
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Boston Globe 2012
