| Author |
 Topic  |
|
scamore
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 1:56:46 PM
|
| did anyone notice how matewsky vanish and then I saw him down the square holding signs |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 1:59:58 PM
|
| I was wondering what happened to him, he wasn't there for any of the voice votes. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2008 : 5:07:56 PM
|
| I also just wanted to say I can not believe how many people were absent. I think it's terrible. Cynthia Sarnie has proven that she is dedicated and I'm sure her work commitment was important or she would have been there however, I heard no excuse for the rest and I'm also speaking of the "bailing" in the middle of it. Was it that important for Wayne to hold signs today for State Rep during a budget meeting????? It's like.... RVC, Chuck and Rosa do it all and that's terrible. I hope you realize what that means....that means...they don't give a damn. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 5:28:47 PM
|
| If you didn't notice, DiPerri bailed at some point this morning but he wasn't alone. Showing up late, even with donuts, isn't any better. Wayne, what more can be said?. What about the ones that show up and do not participate at all? (Nuzzo, Smith, etc.) Maybe the budget's not their thing but I just can't understand how they can just sit there. I'll give Ranieri a pass this time though. I had the meeting on early and I heard him tell RVC that he was just going to sit there and say nothing at all; I understand that given his circumstance. RVC told him to go sit in the audience when City Services was up; I think Cornelio, rightly, joined him at that time. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 8:12:05 PM
|
I was really concerned this morning when the first issue brought up at the budget meeting was when were they getting out. I was pleasantly surprised for the most part after that though, especially for the first two hours of the meeting. During those two hours, I thought that the city council was on top of their game, asking all the right questions, finding almost all of the same issues that I found and even more. They could have been ticked off at Mr. Carlisle for not showing up the other night and presenting them with a budget that was challenging to work with but they didn't make an issue out of it. It was probably the best two hours of a city meeting that we've seen in a long time. After the first recess, I don't think that they were as on as they were before the break but they were still pretty good.
I know that the members of the city council are "part-time" employees and they probably want to get thru these budget hearings in as few sessions as possible. But after what I saw this morning, I think that they should consider scheduling more, but shorter, hearings. It would keep them more focused, keep department heads from sitting around as long and might eliminate the issue of people having to bail at some point. On the other hand, it might make the "no-show" issue worse. I don't think that other cities and towns try to cram all of their budget review into two meetings. I'd even be for them moving the hearings off the weekend so that they wouldn't lose part of their weekend. On the other hand, maybe the reason that they were so on was because it was the first thing in the morning; who knows? Just some things to consider.
The biggest disappointment that I had this morning was that the mayor didn't start off the meeting by providing any more insight into the thinking that went into creating this budget. I really feel that this should have been done when the city council was presented the budget but, since it was not done then, I was hoping that we'd it this morning. Instead, we got the information in dribs and drabs throughout the meeting. There was some good stuff in the budget that the administration should be proud of. When looked at as a whole, maybe there some labor significant cost savings in realigning departments. The cost savings that have already been achieved in waste disposal costs make up a significant portion of the budget cuts. But, just as important, if not more so, major shifts have been made in the structure of city government that I'm not sure that we all fully understood that needed to be explained to the general population.
Last night, I took some shots at the budget because I wasn't really fully aware of the bigger budget picture. Someone needed to paint that picture for all of us, especially in a year when so many changes are being made. The organization charts that appear at the front of each section of the budget didn't do the trick. We've heard some of it through the grapevine, but we are never are sure how much of it we should believe. Of course, this criticism is directed at the current administration but it has been a problem in this city for a long, long time. People in this city just want to be in the know. If we can't find things out, we tend to fill in the blanks on our own; that's how rumors get started. It might be time to think about changing things. If the administration truly wants to have a "New Beginning", they need to learn how to educate us better and manage our expectations.
Some more shorter thoughts later. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 9:46:15 PM
|
Wasn't impressed with Mr. Carlisle's public speaking abilities. Thought he would have been more polished given the positions he has held and the length of time he has held them. Remembered him being a lot better in the infamous Southbridge video.
Appears as if Mr. Carlisle could saved himself some grief if he let Mr. DeCoste review his budget for suggested changes before it got distributed. Sensed some friction between them.
How many items are there going to be in this capital improvement budget? I thought that the city couldn't afford to borrow any more money. If we do borrow, I would have to assume that it wouldn't have to be paid for until FY10 because I don't see much of a provision for repaying any of it in FY09.
I thought RVC ran a pretty good meeting but he might have done himself a favor be letting Sal DiDomenico run a larger portion of it. Got himself confused a couple of times. Some of the dopes just don't get it no matter how hard you try though.
I think that it's obvious that the microphone upgrade is desperately needed; I know that I missed some things that I wanted to hear. I don't know how to upgrade the users though.
A few tidbits of information that we have been looking for. One street sweeper was down until recently and needs a major upgrade to provide adequate service. The street sweeping contract didn't go out to bid because GTA is on the state's approved vendor list. New VSO "any day now". The chief of staff/city solicitor will need to get a special employee designation to hold both jobs.
Does anyone know exactly how step increases work for non-union personnel? It seems that a lot of department heads and assistant departments are getting them. Seems like they run at least 3.5%.
Thought that most of cuts approved were good cuts. Fairly obvious that most of them should have been cut though.
I know it was cut, but why did postage usage drop so dramatically in FY08? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 07:46:20 AM
|
I am still impressed with Mr DeCoste, although I did get a sense that he was holding back a little. The man seems to know his stuff. It was a good move on the Mayor's part keeping Mr DeCoste on board. They should utilize him as much as possible.
I missed some of the meeting. What was said about ISD? Was there any discussion about the rec director? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 09:22:41 AM
|
The mayor mentioned that he is heading towards an ISD. Ordinance changes are necessary and will be coming soon. May be looking for more money for more qualified people. The debate over the code enforcement position eventually cut came down to the administration wanting use the money for that position for something else later on. RVC told them that they could come back later for it so that the legislative branch could retain some control over compensation. Given the tough budget environment, it would have been a lot better if this issue had gotten sort out in time for the budget process.
I was a little bit tuned by the time the Rec was discussed, so I may not have all the details right. Peter Pet "oversees" what goes on down at the Rec and has since the cuts were made. Senator Galluccio helped the city get a $150,000 grant that will be used to hire a Rec director for $50,000 and the other $100,00 will go to the stadium. Should be able to get the grant going forward as well. The Rec director will be found thru a local boys and girls club organization so that the appointment won't be political. That organization will also help to provide programs at the Rec. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 3:36:38 PM
|
| I'm not sure how I feel about an ISD. Seems like some consolidation is turning into creating and I guess it would consist of how many people and who it would it be in charge but of course, I'll wait to see how this goes. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 3:43:54 PM
|
| At the budget hearing on Saturday, did I hear the mayor say we are not saving any tax dollars by having Mr Carlisle do both the Budget Director and Purchasing Agent's job and just a slight savings by having Ms Deveney be both Chief of Staff and City Solicitor? If it's not cost effective then what is the point of consolidating these positions? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 3:59:05 PM
|
| Sound's like an unnecessary burden to me... so there is no cost savings (like the Mayor keeps proclaiming) for this? Plus, we are paying for him to be certified?? I know Mr. Pedulla was not certified in the beginning and I thought that was wrong then too but come on, how many times are we going to keep paying for this? At least Mr. Pedulla was certified and paid for. No way is Clayton the most qualified for this position either. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he was "specifically chosen" and that reason falls under the Woodwaste thread. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 9:32:55 PM
|
I'm not sure how the creation of the ISD is going have any cost savings benefit. Hard to believe that if the three departments reported to a new director, that enough redundancy could be cut from them to even pay for a new director, let alone save any money. Some of the positions that may be considered for consolidation appear to be union; hard to believe the union would be in favor of cuts or agree to additional work loads without additional compensation. The mayor mentioned on Saturday that he might be looking for more qualified people for some of the positions in the combined department and additional positions so that they can enforce ordinances that they currently can't get to. A move like that should have to be cost justified. After the revenue needed to pay for that is taken into account, there may be the expectation of some additional revenue. The question there would be is it sustainable revenue or something that would tend to drop of over time as the violators catch on.
I shared some numbers the other night about the minimal cost savings that have been achieved by the consolidations of the departments. When I did that, I may have left out some additional cuts that may or may not should have been included in those calculations. One can argue that the constituent services position cut from city services should have been included in this calculation since that job's responsibilities have been transferred to the mayor's office. Of course, you could also argue that this job was unnecessary position created by the prior administration. Since the mayor didn't even try to let us in on his thinking, we are left to make up our own minds about that.
I'm still confused about the elimination of the personnel director's position. I'm still not sure who will be handling all of the responsibilities of that position. Therefore, I'm not in a position to hazard a guess how and if this should be included in any cost savings calculation. Maybe we'll find out more about it on Thursday night. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 9:46:45 PM
|
| I remember last year all department head’s had to say their salaries, but the parts of the budget I did see this year, no one questioned the salaries. Jerry Sheehan had to say what he was making along with the budget director at the time, and City Services had to take HUGE cuts in road salt, etc… and it seems like they are just giving it to Zaniboni. We were so close to a Prop 2 1/2 last year and with an 8 million dollar increase, proposed by this administration, (before city council cuts)……I guess I will wait for the bottom line because I just don’t get it. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 10:00:17 PM
|
| Department head increases were questioned on Saturday, probably mostly by Rosa. A question was asked if step raises could be broken up, i.e., not a full step this year. Also, I believe that she stated that department heads shouldn't get any more than the negotiated pay raises for contracts that are due. How do you predict the future for something like that? No action was taken on any of it and it wasn't followed up on in any way. |
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 09:56:53 AM
|
| Massdee asked a good question. If there is no savings in consolidating then what is the point of it? Last year the Purchasing Office cost $141,050. The Budget Office cost $61,360 for a total cost of $202,410. Under the consolidated FY 2009 budget, the Mayor's Recommendation for Purchasing is $19,050 and the Mayor's Recommendation for Budget is $200,054 for a total cost of $219,304. The City is spending an additional $19,250 to save money to consolidate two departments to be run by someone who is not even from Everett. HELLO! Everett taxpayers are not that stupid. Who is this Carlisle guy anyway? Sounds like he knows how to dish out the the happy horse sugar honey ice tea. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Budget FY 09
