| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 11:16:54 PM
|
Nicholas,
Great first post. I think that I can speak for the few regulars that we still have here. We are all amazed that there aren't more people posting here at this time whether they agree with us or not. We'd be happy to have you and anyone else to join us with well thought out ideas and comments. Welcome.
Tails,
In regards to the added employees (not positions), I'd suggest that you go back and read (or re-read) the post I made before Nicholas' first. It only has supporting data for calendar year 2006 (the first year of the Hanlon administration), but I believe it shows a significant increase in the number of employees added to the retirement system in that year.
As far as the $120,000 goes, it was handled correctly. In prior years, these capital items have been part of the regular operating budget. These items were also included in the detail budget that was provided to the city council for this year. They needed to be cut from that budget. The budget that they vote on, for some reason, is not the detailed budget. It may be the summary budget that appears in the file after the mayor's budget letter. I noticed that, from day one, the $120,000 was not included in that budget. So you can't cut what not already there.
But, I'm not sure that cutting the $120,000 from the operating budget isn't a little bit of a shell game either. I've posted this before but I'll do it again. The effect of cutting $120,000 from the operating budget is to make the savings in the city side of the budget appear to be $120,000 greater than they really are. If these capital expenses are funded, and they almost have to be, the $120,000 will have come from somewhere. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 08:46:58 AM
|
| Let me see if I have this straight, the 125 are not new employees, that is how many employees have become eligible to enter the retirement system. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 09:03:59 AM
|
Tails,
You can use the PERAC web site (You must be logged in to see this link.) to do some research. It's hard to pin down exactly why things went bad there but you can see a couple of interesting things. In the earliest reports that PERAC has on its website, Everett's pension fund was funded in the low 50% range. That's a lot better than it is now but was it appropriate even at that time? If you work thru the reports on the website, you'll see that Everett's return on investment on this money during the early 2000's, didn't help either. I ran across a report somewhere on the site yesterday that showed even when the return on investment has been in positive territory, in comparison to other communities, Everett's ROI was one of the lowest ones around, at least in one year (low 6% range vs. 8% to 10% range in other communities). You must also understand that, until recently, PERAC did not mandate to Everett how much it had to contribute to the retirement fund each year. It was up to the city to determine what it thought was the appropriate amount to contribute each year. Those days are long gone. And there will come a time when the city is going to absolutely choke on the payments required to get this thing fully funded by 2028.
Billydee,
I think that there is not much talk about the school department budget on the site because the schools are only funded at slightly over the state required foundation budget level. This year, the over funding only amounts to $31, I think, and that was only done to round up the city's contribution to a round number. You can choose not to fund the schools at the state required levels but you need to make it up at some point down the line. Eventually, the state does allow you to set your tax rate until you make up the shortfall; they can also penalize you by taking away Chapter 70 money permanently thereby making the city or town to make up the difference on the foundation budget in the years going forward. Everett's done this in the past but we got caught up before any penalties kicked in. Revere finds itself in this situation now and is having a hard time getting out of it. The city would have to be in dire financial straits before I could see myself supporting under funding this obligation.
Of course, if you want to talk about how the school department spends its money, that's another story. The question that Alderman Sachetta asked at the budget sessions about the school department spending so much on advertising for events that the papers should cover for free was questioned in last audit of the School Department done by the IG's office; yet, FFF continue to go on his own merry way. And I think that we all might hazard a guess that there could be more going on as well. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 09:19:38 AM
|
Massdee,
That's the way that I see it. I admitted yesterday that I didn't know what all of the eligibity requirements were though; so, it's hard to judge it any further without more information. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2008 : 09:48:45 AM
|
Thanks again Tetris. Now I completely understand and I'm not sure how I missed that post. I do not disagree concerning a lot of added employees however, "125" employees, minus teachers, fire and police... I am having a hard time believing. It is the 125 (number)I am having trouble with. I too would like to see proof of this. Mr. Carlisle was the one that said the "Hanlon administration" hired 125 employees minus teachers, fire police. We all know there was a insignificant increase, but until I see proof of 125 (as he stated, by the "Hanlon administration...again, minus teachers, fire and police") I'm not buying that at all and I think he had hoped that no one would question him on that but he was taken aback by RVC and didn't like it.
I have a problem with the way this budget director answers questions (and takes an hour to answer) and I also have a problem with his history. I am sorry but a man from Southbridge, who that town practically ousted and whom is responsible for signing a 29 year contract with their landfill (and are having so many problems with that landfill)was the most qualified?
I beg to differ, and for a man that is receiving a hefty salary from us (that the majority here make half of his salary) and, was on the verge of retirement, was wrong. I find it very hard to believe there was not ONE Everett resident or even remotely closer by that was qualified and would have done right by their neighbors. Maybe someone younger that NEEDS a job. I wonder how Clayton Carlisle even heard of this position all the way from Southbridge.
Agenda Item number 3..
You must be logged in to see this link.
Something is not right here. My issues may not be relevant to the budget but actually, they are. The taxpayers have to put their trust in a budget director with our money and I don't trust him. This entire city is floating upstream without a paddle. |
Edited by - Tails on 06/11/2008 10:04:50 AM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 10:16:34 AM
|
Tails,
It's not minus police and fire; it's only minus teachers and school department administrators.
Be careful comparing what you make to what city officials make. The Independent today accused Councilor Napolitano of playing the socio-economic race card last week in his questioning of Ms. Deveney. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 10:34:00 AM
|
Are you kidding me?? I have not seen the paper, but I am not surprised at all. I think Councilor Napolitano was right on with what he said and I think most citizens would agree. I'll have to see the papers but it sounds like that was not fair at all. In all fairness, all city officilas of the past did not make nearly the salary that our new ones make and they don't live in Everett. These consolidations will hurt us and hurt the next Mayor and I think since there is such a small cost savings, and this administration is not looking into "long term effects" of these consolidation, I feel, they are doing this deliberately. If C DeMaria does not get re-elected, the new Mayor will have a very tough road with these consolidations that will not work. We had a residency ordinance for a reason and I have a problem the way things are being handled and how our money is being spent.
I certainly don't trust the papers either and they should look into some ethical laws concerning themselves. They are supposed to print truths not how much money they are going to make with city advertisements. Thats all they care about. I give Councilor Napolitano a lot of credit for doing his homework and speaking up for what's right. There is too much dead weight up there that just sit there and collect a paycheck and not say one word and let these atrocities continue. I'm sorry that he's not my ward. |
Edited by - Tails on 06/11/2008 10:40:06 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 10:34:15 AM
|
Speaking of the Independent, don't they have the amount for the the total cut incorrect? Don't they need to minus that 120,000.00?
Another thing I noticed as I was reading the paper was the City Solicitor. It said last years the City Solicitor was part time at a salary of $75,697.00 if he was full time. Since he wasn't I'll assume he made a salary of around #38,000.00. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a full time position, but since it wasn't, how is it cost effective with all the changes this year? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 11:03:51 AM
|
| Since fire and police where up to capacity, I wonder about the rush to get this fire reserve list.....but that will be for another day, another thread. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 11:42:43 AM
|
Massdee,
I was just about to comment on the Independent's budget numbers. Whether or not you include the $120,000 depends upon which budget you are talking about. Since that was confusing for some of us as well, I'll cut them a little slack on that. However, let's look at the entire text of the second paragraph of the article entitled "Lawmakers finalize FY09 budget" on page 3 of today's Independent; we could use the laughs. It reads as follows:
"In total, lawmakers managed to cut $392,830 from the bottom line of Mayor Carlo DeMaria's $133.8 million budget recommendation, lowering the total FY'09 budget to just over $132 million."
We've already talked about the amount of the cut. But, neither of the budgets that are posted on the city's website have a bottom line of $133.8 million. The summary budget has a bottom line of $133,090,779; the detail budget has a bottom line of $133,209,779. So what does it matter which amount you subtract from the paper's budget number; it's just wrong.
I know that the difference between the two city budgets is only $119,000; there are a couple of other goofy adjustments listed in the summary budget that have gotten no play. One, for $1,000, effects the bottom line, the others don't; I can't explain it. We can talk more amount them later if anybody is interested. Back to the lovely article.
So when you subtract $392,830 from $133.8 million you get a number just over $132 million? Will these people help me pay my mortgage for me; they really seem to know how to stretch a dollar.
So the adjusted bottom line is just over $132 million? The vote that was taken by the BOA on Monday night was for an amount of $132,844,455. I change my mind; I don't think that I want these people anywhere near my mortgage.
And remember, Clayton Carlisle will refer you to the local newspapers for factual budget analysis.
Just for informational purposes, the city solicitor's salary was budgeted at the full-time rate just in case something happened that would have forced them to appoint a full time person during the year. It's too bad Ms. Deveney didn't have any figures about how much money the city solicitor's office was returning to the city for FY08. There should have been a minimum of about $19,000 that was saved by having a part-time city solicitor for six months.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 11:50:37 AM
|
Tails,
Fire and police were brought up to capacity under Hanlon. When we were having the reserve list discussion, I researched the issue of whether or not someone on the reserve list is eligible for retirement benefits. For just being on the list, they are not.
You might want to let this go for now. I'm sure that RVC and DiPerri will grill Mr. Carlisle extensively when he reports back on the issue in two weeks. We can pick up on the discussion after that, if need be. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 09:50:50 AM
|
| Great, so the budget director uses our newspapers as a source for his budget analysis. He just might end up being worse than Vetrano. |
|
|
|
turk182
Member
88 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 11:33:53 AM
|
I am confused, are you picking on the Mayor for trying to reduce overhead by downsizing the city government? That's what Corporations do when they are forced into cost reduction mode, they ask their associates to do more with less. I think Mr. Sachetta had a good point the other night let the Mayor do his job.
"Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb" |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 4:02:27 PM
|
| Turk, When major corporations downsize they actually save money. There's no savings in what Carlo is doing. It's the only way he can pay the outrageous salaries he's giving his new hires.......... |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 5:13:46 PM
|
Or, to paraphrase a different line from a song that you obviously like, it's because he "ain't the sharpest tool in the shed."
Sorry, I know, it's harsh but I could have picked a worse one from the same song.
BTW, for those you that may not recognize it, the song is All Star by Smash Mouth circa 1999, used in the Shrek movies. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Budget FY 09
