| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 12:29:20 PM
|
The particular page that contains line 10 is the only one in the document that does not contain an explicit sign-off on the information provided. My best guess of who to talk about the data on the page would be the city auditor or perhaps, the treasurer. If you didn't feel comfortable about contacting either of them directly, I'd either call the mayor's office or contact an alderman or councilor to help you out.
The setting of the tax rates is a big issue. You'd have a hard time covering every aspect of it at a city meeeting. And quite frankly, that type of discussion would put most people to sleep. I think that it's much more realistic to expect a general overview of an issue or the answers to specific questions to be handled in such a forum.
With that said, I do believe that the ball was dropped on the snow removal overage issue. It's pretty clear from reading that law that some type of city council approval was needed in order handle the overage in that fashion. And we can't say that there isn't plenty of blame to go around. Since we knew that this was Mr. Carlisle's and/or the administration's plan since the budget hearings, any member of the city council could have raised the issue as well. Pretty much water under the bridge at this point though since the tax rate is set. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 12:49:25 PM
|
Thanks for that! You are correct it is pretty much water under the bridge at this point, and wont change anything, but, it keeps my belief of negligence. I think the public deserves to know what's been over-run.
"blatantly, gone are the days" |
Edited by - Tails on 01/16/2009 12:49:56 PM |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
136 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 3:48:36 PM
|
| Interesting reading to say the least. The worse deficit in as many years that you can view back. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 3:50:17 PM
|
1.
Not to get hung up on procedure but this isn't what I remembered being voted on at the last BOA meeting. So I watched that portion of the meeting again and my memory was correct. But, it is the status from the meeting report on the city web site though. Whatever. Let's just get the Common Council's input on the consent order and get the process moving along. Although having an open process has its pluses, the length of time that it can allow an issue to drag on is not one of them.
2.
I'm not sure why to all of the contract settlements for Local 25 didn't get introduced in the same week. Some were introduced this last week, some this week. Don't get it.
6.
Planning board members are one of the few appointments that requires approval of both boards.
8.
It will be interesting to see how the vote goes on this item. But, in the end, will it mean anything?
9.
Does anyone understand where the state is with this issue? Toll hikes? Increased gas tax? Some of both?
11.
I'm glad that this item has been embellished since last week's preliminary agenda. The change makes it clearer that this contract settlement is separate from the Local 25 one.
15.
I'm not sure that we won't hear some grumblings about replacing the parking meters and buying smart cars but I think that this item will pass fairly easily.
16.
I never really commented on this ordinance nor its public hearing. Since it's probably my last chance, I'll give it a shot. Because, junkyards, and the like, are such a big part of the city already, whether we like it or not, it only makes sense to try to put some controls on future expansion of these businesses. Other types of business are regulated as to where they can be located, why not these? It's not going to infringe on the right of anything that is currently in the works since the city knows that would be a losing battle. If something comes up in the future, since it is a zoning ordinance, there's always the Zoning Board of Appeals.
On a side note, I'm not sure if this ordinance change isn't at least of some help to Mr. Thibeault in his negotiations with Modern Continental to buy the Lower Broadway property. If you noticed, it was their lawyer, not Mr. Rossi, that spoke against it. Lessening the options that a perspective buyer may have for the land (and honestly, the options are limited anyways) can do nothing but help to drive down the price of it. Unintended consequences, I would guess.
Again, it will be interesting to see how this vote goes down. To me, the right vote is clear; the actual vote, I don't have a clue.
18.
I hope that all of the embarrassing questions got asked when this item was in committee. I've heard a rumor that an additional person has been hired for the Budget Office. If that is true, I hope that this transfer will leave enough money in the Budget Office Salary line item to pay them and the Budget Director thru the end of the year. A situation like that wouldn't look very well thought out down the line.
19.
Well Joe, at least your white goods piece isn't dead yet.
22.
The charter review home rule petition was signed by the governor on 01/10/2009, according to the state web site. Maybe they can use this piece to confirm for us what the next steps in the process are.
23.
Thank goodness. My Comcast bill is a joke and we need an alternative. One question though. Does the city's current contract with Comcast give them exclusivity in the city? I hope not.
24.
I know that the worksheet is not available for discussion at the meeting. So, does anybody know what "a blinking slow timing light at the lights" in item #2 means? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 3:01:01 PM
|
Item 8 should pass without any problem. It does not mean that the Mayor will do it, it just means he has the backing of the city council if he has to issue a cease and desist. To vote that down, will not help the Mayor. The city council can recommend whatever they want. Myself personally, I don’t feel this enforcement agreement will work, for many reasons.
That said if the Mayor is not in town tomorrow, can the enforcement order still go before the common council? I hope he will be in town because this has been planned and is very important and some members may have questions for him.
"blatantly, gone are the days" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 8:46:49 PM
|
| The consent order is only going before the common council to ask for any comments and changes that they have for it. I'm sure that there will be one or more representatives of the administration there to answer any questions that any of the members have. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
136 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2009 : 10:35:32 AM
|
| Wonder if Sergio has anything to say on the consent order. Heard it was the mayor himself that saved his job. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2009 : 10:11:49 PM
|
1.
WOW! I think that the mayor needs to re-read the original draft of the consent order that he provided to the Board of Alderman and re-watch the tape of the BOA meeting where he told Alderman Van Campen that lower Broadway was off the table. And the city council doesn't have any authority over the siting permit for Wood Waste with the exception of the zoning change approved tonight. How can some of the councilors be so uninformed on the issue after all this time? Props to Leo McKinnon for pointing out that the current agreement seems to be less than iron clad; however, I would be interested to see what kind of suggestions that he has to make it so. Overall, another of those "shining" moments in Everett politics.
8.
OK. It passed; what now?
10.
Would it be too much to ask for councilors to come to meeting prepared and actually read an ordinance to see what an agenda item means.
17.
We shouldn't fine people for smoking pot in public because they need the money to put food on the table? Here's a better idea, don't buy pot in the first place if you can't afford it and its possible consequences. At least the guy had a good line about the Newburyport landfill.
18.
I guess that Councilor DiFlorio didn't like the answers that she got when this was in committee. I wish that some of that could have been shared with the rest of us. Certain committee meetings need to be televised all the time.
19.
Poor Joe; he's his own worst enemy.
21.
DCR, no update. What a surprise!
22.
Let's see what appears in the papers and go from there.
23.
Who was the "genius" that signed a ten year exclusive agreement with Comcast? Is there anything that guy didn't screw up?
24.
Why did the work sheet need to be taken out of order?. Thanks for the clarification, Councilor Sierra on what you are looking for at Nicholas and Malden. If a blinking snow emergency light can be installed there, it probably should. But how did people find out about snow emergencies before we had those lights? Also, an effort needs to be made by both the councilors and the aldermen to write clearer agenda items.
I missed the very beginning of the meeting, so I don't know why Millie Cardello wasn't in the chair from the beginning of the meeting. I don't think that it helped with the overall flow of the meeting. Not the best agenda to have a smoothly flowing meeting with but I thought that it was a pretty bumpy night overall. I still don't get the need for a lot of the agenda hopping. Let's hope that her meetings get better from here on
What's up with the microphone situation? The new system has been in place for only about six months and seems to have problems. It doesn't help that some of members have decided to stop using their microphones again.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2009 : 11:04:40 PM
|
Yes, I remember the Board of Alderman meeting and RVC specifically said “lower Broadway is off
the table” and the Mayor said “yes”
It was either a bold faced lie to the Board of Alderman or the Common Council. No one on the common council asked him “Which is it”
Things like this strengthen my beliefs that Councilor Simonelli was correct. There are too many people that slow down government and waste time. People need to consider this once charter review approaches. Nice explanation from Councilor Peter Napolitano.
I still feel that item 8 just gives the Mayor backing of city government if he does need to follow through with a cease and desist. I think it was unprofessional and an insult to the people of Everett that have been suffering over Wood Waste to stand there and say “I wish you didn’t vote for it." As long as Wood Waste obeys the consent agreement, we will never have to go for cease and desist so I’m sure why some members seemed a little upset but then voted on it. It's like a "back up plan" and for some reason, he doesn't want it. With the consent agreement sounding weak, item 8 was necessary to pass.
I got news for the dude from Newburyport who does not want us to change the marihuana ordinance. I would not come back in two weeks. It won’t go over well. I for one do not want to walk Glendale Park with a group of teenagers smoking pot. That’s going to happen, and we need to give the police all the help they need.
I’m with you on the bumpy night but it was her first full meeting. No…it did not help that she missed the beginning. She was there but I believe called away. That’s when it started getting a little “rowdy.” The flip flopping all over the agenda is not called for either.
The microphone seems to die mid meeting and only the presidents or the podium. I would ask for a refund.
"blatantly, gone are the days" |
Edited by - Tails on 01/20/2009 11:11:38 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 8:07:34 PM
|
A couple of things that I forgot from last night's meeting:
- How does the city lose track of an issue of something like expanding the powers of the parking enforcement staff? How far back does that go? Who is responsible for keeping track of something like that?
- Does anyone know what the difference between rule 13 and 17 are. I don't recall the aldermen suspending rule 13 when they had the same items before them? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 12:04:00 PM
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2009, 7:00 PM, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 3RD FL., EVERETT
COMMUNICATIONS FROM HIS HONOR THE MAYOR
1.
C0019-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To transfer $119,200.00 from the Budgetary Fund Balance to the following accounts in the Veteran's Department. These transfers are necessary due to the increased usage of medical benefits for the veterans. Vet Ben-Allowance $95,000.00, Vet - Ben-Dr., Dentist, Hosp $5,000.00, Vet - Ben - Medex $19,200.00.
2.
C0020-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To accept the donation of $5,000.00 from Joe O'Donnell, Boston, Culinary Group, Inc. to the Mayor's Office of Human Services-Emergency Services Account. This donation will be used to support the Office of Human Services Emergency Program for Everett Residents.
3.
C0021-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To accept the donation of $100.00 from the Vietnam Veteran Association and Iron Worker's Local 7 to the Veterans Department Gift Account. This donation will be used by the Veteran's Department to replace existing memorials with signs.
PAPERS FROM THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
4.
A0341-08 Ordinance/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen
To amend Chapter 18-149(e) of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett by inserting a new subsection as follows: "(7) Recreational Vehicles and Campers." (Ordained sent down for ordainment)
COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.
C0069-08
Public Safety Committee Report on Resolution offered by Councilors Leo McKinnon and Mille Cardello relative to an old issue concerning the firefighters reserve list; with a recommendation to refer back to sponsors.
6.
C0249-08
Public Safety Committee Report on Resolution offered by Councilor William L. Cardello-That the Owner of Dunkin Donuts on Broadway and the Police Chief attend the next public safety committee meeting to discuss traffic on Broadway between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m.; with a recommendation to refer to the Traffic Commission.
7.
C0214-08
Committee on Public Service Report on Ordinance offered by Councilor Joseph R. King-To abolish fees for the removal of white goods, that is, refrigerators, stoves, et cetera.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8.
A0004-09 Ordinance/s/Aldermen L. Charles DiPerri, Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, Alderman Sal Sachetta, Councilor Millie Cardello, Councilor Lorrie Bruno, Councilor Sal DiDomenico
That the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett Chapter 13 Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions is hereby amended by adding Section 13-1.1 Public consumption or use of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol. (Amended by adding Co-Sponsors Alderman Sal Sachetta, Councilors Millie Cardello, Lorrie Bruno and Sal DiDomenico, enrolled as amended, sent down for enrollment.) (Laid on table and invite Police Chief and Scott Mortimer to attend this meeting.)
NEW BUSINESS
9.
C0013-09 Resolution/s/Councilor Anthony F. Ranieri
That the City Clerk Michael Matarazzo and City Solicitor Colleen Mejia appear this meeting to answer questions on how the people of Everett can run for the Office of Charter Review Commissioner.
10.
C0014-09 Ordinance/s/Councilor Leo McKinnon
To look into the feasibility of extending the Designation of Residential Parking Sticker Program Section 18-148 City of Everett Ordinances by adding the days Saturday and Sunday to the existing Ordinance to cover the week end due to large numbers of vehicles parking on the streets and not having the parking to compensate for them on the weekends.
11.
C0015-09 Resolution/s/Councilor Sergio Cornelio
That the City Services Sign Division place a 'NO PARKING ON RUBBISH DAYS" sign at 21 Cottage Street for Godwin Place rubbish removal.
12.
C0016-09 Ordinance/s/Councilors Rosa DiFlorio and Millie Cardello
To establish an ordinance allowing "only sedan cars" to park at legal (20 feet from corner point) intersecting corners and intersections throughout the City of Everett, to assist with public safety of motorists, and pedestrians alike, being blinded by huge vans and trucks parking on corners, from oncoming traffic, thereby creating a clear view for motorists at all turns, corners and intersections throughout the City.
13.
C0017-09 Resolution/s/Councilor Daniel J. Napolitano
To invite the Director of Code Enforcement, the City Solicitor and the Director of City Services to attend this meeting to discuss the proposal of an ordinance regarding people shoveling their sidewalks.
14.
C0018-09 Resolution/s/Councilor John Leo McKinnon
To have the Director of City Services come up to explain who calls a snow emergency, what procedures are to be followed for said emergency and why the catch basins in the last storm were not cleared that has caused wide spread flooding throughout the City. I have had numerous complaints that this should be done if we anticipate snow then rain for the forecast and that the plows should clear the streets all the way to the curbs of the non-vehicle side if they are to be towed by police.
15.
C0022-09 Resolution/s/Councilor Stephen Simonelli
To invite the Director of the Retirement Fund Mr. Robert Shaw and a Member of the Retirement Board to our next meeting on February 17th with an update on our retirement fund.
AJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted:
C. McCorry,
Everett City Council Office
council@ci.everett.ma.us
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 8:07:28 PM
|
| I heard a rumor that Erin Deveney resigned today. I cant confirm it, but that's what I heard. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 10:12:05 AM
|
1.
I just find the wording of this piece to be very disingenuous, especially after the piece that appeared in last week's Independent. In that piece, a lot of the problem was blamed on a budget cut that was attributed to our old "friend" Clayton Carlisle. Which is it? Let's look at the facts.
In FY08, veteran's benefits were originally budgeted at $257,818, of which $231,818 was for the veteran's allowance benefit. About this time last year, then Commissioner Rice came before the council asking for an increase in the allowance benefit of $140,000 due to the increase in the number of veterans the office was serving. After some wrangling, most notably with Alderman Van Campen who wanted to see some documentation of the need, the transfer was ultimately approved and the total amount of available for veterans' benefits was nearly $400,000.
When it came for the FY09 budget, there was no Veteran's Services Officer; so it appears that Mr. Carlisle may have come up with the budget of the department by himself. He set the total amount for FY09 veteran's benefits at $300,000. At the time of the budget was prepared, an amount in excess of $339,000 had already been spent in FY08 and there were nearly two months left in the fiscal year. The FY09 budgeted amount makes little sense as there was an expectation that the number of veterans that the office served was likely to go up rather than down. I noticed this at budget time and may have commented on it then; there was so much to comment on at budget time, that I can't really recall.
This is one of those line items that the city needs to fund. The city will ultimately reimbursed at 75% of the costs by the state. The article in the Independent states that if the city doesn't fund these payments, the state will step and pay them but the city will face a stiff fine if that occurs. Under the Hanlon administration, the term "truth in budgeting" used to be thrown around. Although I don't feel that they truly followed it, what was meant by it was appropriate amounts would be budgeted for every line item so that the need for transfer would be minimized. The old chestnut of "If you need more money, come back for a transfer" needs to become a thing of the past. The city has been blessed (cursed?) with substantial amounts of free cash in the last few years; but, no one knows how much longer that might be the case. Getting the budget right the first time around will be of the utmost importance in these challenging financial times.
The Independent article states that Commissioner Hickey plans on asking for level funding of veterans' benefits in FY10. He has all of the necessary data to make this decision, so he should have some idea of whether or not the number of veterans he services will be increasing and how much the cost of living increases in the veteran allowance will be given. Level funding of the benefits may work out fine but it is not unreasonable to expect that at least some increase in the line items could be justified as well. As I said before, let's plan on trying to get it right the first time from now on.
5.
I wonder what ever happened to the firefighters reserve list issue? Seemed like a hot issue last year. I also wonder what happened to the two ordinance changes to eliminate the fire commissioners that were referred to the city solicitor's office and never came back to the council?
7.
I guess that the meeting hadn't take place at the time that the agenda was written as you get no idea where this is headed. I've got to admit, Councilor King has piqued my curiosity on this at least.
8.
Will Scott Mortimer regret making a return trip to Everett?
9.
I think that I would have rather seen a meeting scheduled where those people who are interested in running for the Charter Review Commission could come and ask their own questions. Maybe that still can happen.
10.
The Residential Parking program probably need some modifications, including expanding it to seven days a week. The question is where is the money going to come from to pay for the added enforcement? I'd like to see some numbers that show what potion of the program is currently paid for by the tickets that are written from it before I could fully get behind expanding it. I realize that there are some quality of life issues that go along with this as well. But, it is going to be hard to find the money in the current environment to expand the program if the proposed expansion can't at least be projected to come close to supporting itself.
12.
Would the height of vehicles even be an issue if the "20 feet from corner point" rule were enforced? Do we need another parking law that does not get enforced?
13.
I thought that this item might miss its annual visit to the agenda with Joe Hickey no longer on the council. I know that there are issues that need to be addressed in order to establish a shoveling ordinance. But, other communities have them; why not us? It's time to buckle down and get it done this time. Not going to hold my breath though.
14.
I guess Councilor McKinnon didn't have a chance to watch last Monday's Alderman's meeting where a lot of these issues were discussed. The catch basin issue deserves a discussion though..
15.
I can't imagine that the Retirement Fund is in very good shape, especially with the issues in the financial markets. I haven't heard it discussed but providing some relief on full funding of the Retirement Fund in the mandated time frame could help with the current financial crisis. However, the question with doing something like that (again) is can we really afford it? Insufficient funding is a big reason why the Retirement fund is such a big issue in the first place.
I'm disappointed not to see any type of proposal to raise the fees for the Certificate of Habitability program on the agenda. Last Monday, it was suggested that the current fee may not cover the costs of the inspection. If the program is going to start on March 1, it would only make sense for the updated fees to be in place for the launch, if necessary. It would take a minimum of four readings to pass such a change without it being referred to committee. With it not appearing on this agenda, there's no way for that to happen without calling for at least one special meeting. |
|
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 8:39:08 PM
|
NewsCenter 5's Kelley Tuthill reported that Georgina Murcia raced to Everett's assessors office as the 5 p.m. Monday deadline approached for filing a property tax abatement.
"With this economy, you have to save money somewhere," she said.
Murcia paid $231,000 for her home on Spring Street, a house she said is now worth less than $200,000.
"As of a few minutes ago, we had 592 applications. A year ago at this time, we might have had 200," said Everett's assessor George Keverian. "These rates are based on Jan., 1, 2008, not 2009. So next time, it will be based on 2009, so it will probably be lower."
Worcester has also seen a spike in abatement applications -- 1,500 so far compared to 950 at the same time last year.
But not every assessor's office was busy on Monday. Some municipalities said applications are actually down this year. A Boston spokesman said a decline in applications can be attributed to a reduction in the tax rate. The Watertown assessor said fewer applications can be blamed on the fact that assessments were lowered for the second year in a row.
Copyright 2009 by TheBostonChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I put this here cause I didn't know where to put it, did anyone else know about this? Cause I don't remember reading anything in the local papers nor any posts out here |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 10:09:56 PM
|
| I heard this tonight when it was too late. That was not fair. I have real legitimate issues to file a property tax abatement. I've asked about this before and no one knew anything. It was all kept quite and that was not right. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Com Council/2009
