| Author |
 Topic  |
|
"Fly" on the wall
Member
0 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 9:46:39 PM
|
| $30,000 is compleatly absurd! On a side note, the presentation was very informative tonight and it seemed like DeMaria actually did his homework. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2012 : 2:39:03 PM
|
I saw a replay of the joint convention on May 3. They talk about the financial forecast which sounds like a stormy forecast to me! It was disconcerting to see the embellished Op-Ed in todays Independent over it. Oh yea, great news....we can meet FY13 obligations. Big deal. The future sounds bleak with the debt the city has of 7.6 million. The only good news I heard was the 1.9 million per year the city will get from the state for the new schools.
How come the Levy Ceiling hasn't been brought up before? I never knew we were going by a Levy Ceiling. This is the first I've heard of Levy Ceiling and Levy Limit. According to the auditors, both maximum's appear to be the same, which is about 88 million and the Levy Limit may not exceed the Levy Ceiling. Sounds to me like we could not be any closer to Prop 2 1/2.
Questions need to be asked:
What's with the 498,000.00 increase in administrative functions from last year? That really stood out to me.
City Services has an increase of 147,000.00 from last year? For what?
Something else the auditors mentioned that was totally laughable was the fact the city needs to make transfers to stabilization. In todays Op-Ed the mayor says he will adopt a strict policy on conserving free cash and making transfers to stabilization. Was this not the same account the mayor wanted 4 million from last year to offset taxes (which that account was not created for) and the overdone speeches from Daniel Napolitano and Company about "rainy days".... and how it's pouring out and we needed that money now?? What a complete reversal that was printed in the paper. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 12:42:00 PM
|
I appreciated the information that was provided at the May 3 joint convention; but I really would have liked a copy of the presentation to have been posted on the city web site. I think that it is really important piece of information.
I'm also looking forward to the promised joint convention to go over the city's 10 year financial forecast; I would hope that any prepared information for that meeting would get posted on the city web site too.
Levy Limit? We've heard of that before. Levy Limit Ceiling? Not so much. I haven't really gotten my arms fully around how that is calculated yet. But I'm surprised that the city hasn't already bumped against it given that valuations dropped so dramatically a few years ago and have only recovered ever so slightly. Need to do some research on that.
Although it wasn't explained that way Tails, I believe that the proposed $1.1 million transfer to the stabilization fund represents the difference between the remainder of the upcoming proposed FY13 operating budget and FY13 levy limit. So, you're right; the city's proposed budget couldn't be much closer to the Levy Limit in FY13. Essientially, they want to raise money in FY13 to pay for expenses in future years. How you feel about that will probably depend on if you feel that the city needs to live within its current means or if you don't want to see the budget cut in the portions that can be cut.
There were some things in that op-ed piece that I didn't understand. Hopefully, some one will ask questions about it at the promised upcoming joint convention. |
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2012 : 1:53:40 PM
|
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012, 6:00 P.M. (LIVE ON ECTV-16)
Held in Council Chambers, City Hall, Third Floor
MEMBERS: Aldermen Sal Sachetta-Chairman, Chuck DiPerri, Rob Van Campen,
Councilors Sergio Cornelio-Co-Chairperson, Rosa DiFlorio, David
Rodrigues, Richard DellIsola, Cynthia Sarnie
NOTICES POSTED & EMAILED & MAILED: 5-8-12
AGENDA
1. A0031-12 Resolution/s/Alderman Michael K. Marchese-In light of the recently
adopted city charter, that the city clerk conduct a study of compensation levels for elected
positions of city councilors, aldermen and mayor in surrounding cities of Malden,
Medford, Revere and Somerville, to include term of office for said positions. Invited:
Sponsor, Mayor. City Clerk and City Solicitor
2. PH001-12 Capitol Improvement Plan 2013-2017. Invited: Mayor, Mayor’s Chief
of Staff and Entire City Council.
Adjournment
Respectfully submitted,
Caroline McCorry
Administrative Assistant/Office Manager
Office of the Everett City Council
cc: Members
Facilities Maintenance to have City Hall rear door opened at 5 p.m.
ECTV to go live on Channel 16 and post on ECTV
City Clerk to place on Website. |
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2012 : 2:32:30 PM
|
Everett City Council Office
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2012, 5:00 P.M. (LIVE ON ECTV-16)
Held in Council Chambers, City Hall, Third Floor
MEMBERS: Aldermen Sal Sachetta-Chairman, Chuck DiPerri, Rob Van Campen,
Councilor Sergio Cornelio-Co-Chairman, Councilors Rosa DiFlorio, Richard DellIsola and
Cynthia Sarnie
NOTICES POSTED & EMAILED & MAILED: 8/28/12
AGENDA
1. C0141-12 Order/s/Councilor Daniel J. Napolitano, as President-
That $4,415,767.00 isappropriated to pay costs of the following capital projects: Crosswalk Installation $200,000.00
Roadway Reconstruction $3,771,767.00
Sidewalk Reconstruction $64,000.00
Fire Department Repairs and Design $250,000.00
911 Stairs $50,000.00
Police Station Renovations $80,000.00, including the payment of any
other costs incidental and related thereto; that to meet this appropriation, the
Treasurer, with the approval of the Mayor, is authorized to borrow said under and
pursuant to Chapter 44, Sections 7 and 8 of the General Laws, or pursuant to any
other enabling authority and to issue bonds or notes of the City therefore.
Be it Further Ordered:
That the Treasurer is authorized to file an application with the Municipal Finance Oversight Board to qualify under Chapter 44A of the General Laws any or all of the bonds authorized by this Order and to provide such information and execute such documents as the Municipal Finance Oversight Board may require for these purposes. (In the Common Council 8/20 and Passed (reconsideration failed) sent up for concurrence.)
(In the Board of Aldermen)
8/27 Original Question Divided to approve Glendale Park Improvements
$2,100,000.00 and Parlin School Masonry Repairs $500,000.00. which passed in
concurrence, all other items referred to the Committee on Finance.).
Page 1-2
2. C0142-12 Order/s/Councilor Daniel J. Napolitano, as President-That $7,652,000.00 is
appropriated to pay costs of the following capital projects:
Residential Water Meters (Non-MWRA) $3,000,000.00; Water Main Replacements (MWRA) $4,172,000.00,
Water System Repairs (Non-MWRA) $350,000.00
Water Department Vehicle Replacement $130,000.00, including the payment of any other costs incidental and related thereto; that to meet this appropriation, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Mayor is authorized to borrow said under and pursuant to Chapter 44, Sections 7 and 8 of the General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority, and to issue bonds or notes of the City therefore.
Be it Further Ordered:
That the Treasurer is authorized to file an application with the Municipal Finance Oversight Board to quality under Chapter 44A of the General Laws any or all of the bonds authorized by this Order and to provide such information and execute such documents as the Municipal Finance Oversight Board may require for these purposes. (In the Common Council 8/20 and Amended by deleting $7,652,000.00 and replace with $9,152,000.00 and further amended to delete $4,172,000.00 besides (MWRA) and insert $5,672,000.00 in its place.
Passed, as amended, sent up for concurrence. In the Board of Aldermen 8/27
and Referred to the Committee on Finance with request for Mayor to provide
financial benefits to changing out all meters, impact on ratepayers, and impact
to authorize salary amounts for positions.
Also notify all Members of this meeting.
Adjournment
Respectfully submitted,
Caroline McCorry
Administrative Assistant/Office Manager
Office of the Everett City Council
cc: Members
ECTV to go live on Channel 16 and post on ECTV
City Clerk to place on Website |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2012 : 09:09:29 AM
|
| Now I see why the mayor did not care that this went to finance. 4 out of the 7 are his "yes" people. It's really sad what this has become over little favors. |
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2012 : 6:41:55 PM
|
| Well that was interesting, Everett becoming the new Lynnfield lMAO. Move in families> Hey mayor did hear about he riot over the weekend, what we need are more officers. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2012 : 09:38:46 AM
|
| Just one question. Why did they bother? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2012 : 10:33:54 AM
|
These committee/finance meetings are useless, especially when he mayor is there. He makes it out as face-time and has to have the last word for everything. Spoiled brats act that way.
No one really asked the right questions or handled these items correctly. There are certain streets that should not be a priority, however, they are getting done this year? So much for that pavement management system.
I’ve said it before there should be a more clear cut picture. All the work that is proposed should be physically looked at by our elected officials. If not, then every payment that gets paid out from this plan should go through the BOA. Sorry, but the quotes (to me) are extremely high quotes.
Even after we spend 14 Million on cosmetic surgery, we still will not be Lynnfield. Lynnfield does not have the clientele that now lives in Everett and all the 3 families houses we have. It’s a pipe dream. If you want Lynnfield, move to Lynnfield.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2012 : 11:47:55 AM
|
A lost opportunity as I see it.
For example, Norwood Street and Hancock Street are both on the list to be done in Year 1 of the pavement mangement program. To the untrained eye, both appear to be in pretty good shape and, if memory serves correctly, both were done not all that long ago. Maybe there is some underlying problem that you can't see and it would have been the perfect opportunity to educate the public on what that could be. From what I've heard, both are only scheduled to be resurfaced; I just don't see how that's going to correct any underlying problems though.
I've spoken to someone that's seen a copy of the list of streets to be done. I believe that it's the list of streets that the mayor's chief of staff was referring to last night as I was told it had a total of $24M in repairs listed on it. On that list, Spring Street from Chelsea Street to where it ends on the other side of the Parkway is listed as being reconstructed in year one. OK, it didn't make the cut because the pavement management system wanted more done in year one than the city could afford. But the real problem with that is the portion of the street that is north of the parkway was just reconstructed no more than 2-3 years ago under the current administration. I just can't believe that it needs to be done again. It just calls into question how accurate the information that is in the pavement management system really is.
This same listing also showed Cherry Street as being a year three street in pavement management; but, somehow, it got done this year. Is there some reason for that? Or are we just being sold a bill of goods when we were are being told that the city will be strictly following the pavement management list for streets to be done each year?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's not really all that hard to ask good questions and demand good answers. And just to make it clear, theoretically, I'd pretty much be in favor of these capital appropriation requests if I could get good answers to all the questions that I have. But, I'd also want to see some detailed financially results of these projects before I'd vote for next year's capital appropriation requests. I understand and appreciate the other side of the argument though that maybe the taxpayers deserve a break too. It would have been nice if city government really tried to address both sets of concerns but that rarely, if ever, happens in this city. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Finance Committee Meeting
