| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 8:11:16 PM
|
| That is the way I understand it, too, Citizen. If I remember correctly, it was Van Campen's motion and DiPerri seconded it. The mayor is going to have to cut to the point it gets him under the levy. I figure he won't cut that much and will supplement from the free cash and the stabilization fund. In any case we are all screwed. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 9:48:36 PM
|
| Court, this time CTH knew what she was voting on. During the hearing she said she would not vote for this budget because the taxpayers were going to be hit again with a tax increase. |
|
|
|
H1ghCh4r1ty
Advanced Member
967 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 10:37:36 PM
|
CTH probably has the beginnings of dementia at this point.
In all fairness, I don't think we can expect a consistent vote any time soon.
I'm not bashing, I'm serious.
Emile Schoeffhausen |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 12:50:36 AM
|
| You know, just cutting 3% from the bottom line might not be such a bad idea. It throws the ball back in the mayor's court after he basically refused to submit a responsible budget. He's now going to be forced to make the necessary cuts on his own without being able to make the rest of city goverment look like the bad guys. My only complaint is maybe they should have cut 5% instead of 3. Just making it under the limit is a bit of a cop out. A 5% cut would have made a bigger impact on the bills for the taxpayers. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2007 : 06:38:10 AM
|
You're right MM1 except....... Where's the oversight? I don't recall anyone putting forth a motion requiring the reduced budget be brought back to the CC & BOA for review. There's nothing in place to satisfactorily monitor spending. It always comes as a big surprise when the administration starts asking for transfers from free cash because a department has overspent.
We've always depended on the mayor to keep things in check and this mayor is incapable of that. All he's good for is trivia and story telling. He's allowed department heads to run free and hasn't got the brass or intelligence to reign them in.
The whole thing stinks and from my perspective the CC & BOA dropped the ball............... AGAIN! |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 07:31:59 AM
|
| McGonagle voted against the budget as I expected. The ones I am surprised at are Smith, DiPerri and DiFlorio. They made a lot of noise and just went along with the rest of the city council. I agree MM1, it should have been more like a 5% cut. They didn't do the taxpayers any favors. All they did was get the budget low enough so that it could be legally passed. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 08:39:46 AM
|
| Justme - I concur with you. As you rightly concluded - where's the oversight? Had the City Council done the real work of slicing the budget, they could have exerted a great influence over where the money gets spent. They could have taken out the extraneous positions, overpaid and executively challenged employees...and yet, they took the easy way out. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 08:40:43 AM
|
I would agree with you MM1 at any other time, but from a strictly strategic/political standpoint, I think the City Council would look like heroes at this point if they had taken the time required to do a line item review and recommend reductions in the budget, and they could've come up with a much greater than 3% cut if they had. The pay increases alone would probably get them there. I'm not saying you have to eliminate pay increases all together, but 6% - 10% increases, at this particular time, are outrageous.
And I'd still like to know what these $6 million in fixed costs are and if the increases submitted by the mayor are necessary. For instance, I assume telephone is a fixed cost. Well, we all know that the facilities maintenance director overshot his budget by thousands of dollars this fiscal year. What is the amount that was put out in fiscal '07 and what was recommended for fiscal '08? They should be nowhere close to being the same -- in fact, Barry Doyle said that the steps he had taken this year should reduce phone expenses. Is the budget figure for '08 less than, more than or the same as '07. I know that's a small example, but there must be dozens of examples like that throughout the budget.
I am so disappointed in this outcome. After all of the pontificating and hand wringing and threats and fear mongering on both sides -- this is the best they could do?????
|
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:01:34 AM
|
| At election time, you can bet I will be giving very serious consideration to not casting a vote for any of the incumbents. Our elected officials have disappointed me a bit too often. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:14:00 AM
|
| Regarding the telephone charges - why is it that telephone service is going down for everyone but the city of Everett? Is there a better service out there and has that been looked at or is city services on autopilot? There has to be more than a few ways to save serious money if people were willing to treat the city budget as if it were their own! Unfortunately - we've have an administration that's not professional enough or motivated enough to do the legwork involved. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 11:25:39 AM
|
What I was most shocked at was how fast things turned around in Wednesday's meeting. About a hour and ten minutes into it, Smith made a comment that going thru the budget line by line gave them a lot of power over how the money was going to be spent. There seemed to be a lot of agreement to that statement and it made a lot of sense. But, only one hour later, what happened? They gave up!
Yes, the budget as presented was a mess. Yes, the recently negotiated contracts with the unions seemed to have been done without any regard for the city's current and future financial situation. Yes, a lot of the BOA and the CC don't seem to have a clue and kept harping on issues that were bogging down the process. Yes, it was going to be a long, hard, drawn out process. But to completely change directions in an hour!
And what happens now! The mayor has complete control over the budget again! He does have to cut it 3% but he can cut anything he wants. He'll probably go ahead with the cuts he has already proposed, which seeemed to make some sense (don't get me wrong; the credit for the larger ones go to the auditor, anyways). After that, who knows? Will any of the fat get cut? I doubt it. Will some small cuts be made from things that could be trimmed? Maybe. The police, fire and school budgets probably won't be cut. (FFF aside, I believe that the city needs to meet the DOE's school foundation budget requirements or it's just asking for more financial problems down the line.) Then, what will be cut?
I think that the answer is....IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! The BOA and the CC gave the Mayor back the open checkbook! Anytime that they have any shortfall in the budget, they'll be back with their hand out looking for more money from free cash. And since free cash goes away June 30th until it gets certified, the stabilization fund could also be a target. And they'll have the best excuse possible. "We told you that we couldn't cut the budget!". And how many of them will be able to stand up and criticize the way the budget was cut since they passed on their chance to do so. Only three that I know of. (Thanks Massdee!)
O.K., I know that I'm being a bit overdramatic. At least for the short term, this won't happen since they'll have a full year's budget available to them. But if a miracle of biblical proportions happens and the mayor gets re-elected, I'm sure that this is how things could play out starting late winter/early spring. If someone else gets elected, they better be on top of this situation from day one because they will need to do everything in their power to change things as quickly as possible or they may be forced into the same situation. Before, I was almost looking forward to seeing the Mayor go down in the primary; now I fear it. If he is a lame duck for almost another two months and chooses to be as vindictive as it appears he can be, the mess that he leaves for the next guy could be monumental.
I am so disgusted. What was the point of the last two weeks? Why didn't they just do this then and be done with it? I know that they weren't sure that they could do this then but why was that? In my book, that's called preparation. I've lost any respect I had for those that rail against the Mayor and then took the easy way out. They are nothing more than blowhards.
Up until now I haven't had a clue who I could support for mayor. I knew it wasn't Hanlon but I really wanted to give everyone a chance to prove themselves. I'm afraid that DiMaria and Keane did that the other night. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/22/2007 11:36:03 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 2:32:25 PM
|
I know if Joe is elected, you will see a decrease in the payroll probably on his first full day on the job.
Tetris, I agree with everything you just posted. I am sure you can't trust Hanlon not to sabotage the city if he is not re-elected. There certainly will not be the cash that was there when he took office. They can continue their war cry that everything wrong is the fault of the previous administration, but they have cried wolf too much and it is now falling on deaf ears. This city is going to be far worse off when Hanlon leaves office than when Ragucci left office. I just hope the next mayor can help us out of this mess, and I really do believe there will be a new mayor. I wish Hanlon would give his two week notice and retire now.
Wombli Moni |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 2:33:12 PM
|
Bobby........good to see you back!
|
Edited by - massdee on 06/22/2007 2:37:27 PM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 9:59:10 PM
|
So what's the answer? How do we get the fools who voted the 3% cut without requiring any accountability to fix what they've screwed up so badly? It's a sad day when we finally face the fact that we've got nothing but spineless wonders in positions that require brains and guts.
I'm disgusted with the bunch of them and giving serious thought to making a run myself........... The family is not in favor, but I figure we need at least one person with some common sense up there! |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:53:17 PM
|
| Justme...let me encourage you to run. The city needs people of common sense and valor to run for office. Running the city isn't rocket science; it's not - but it is very much like a business and needs an executive to run it...and legislators to support it with oversight and balance. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Budget
