| Author |
 Topic  |
|
n/a
deleted
136 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2009 : 07:10:42 AM
|
| 140.00 a week is pennies to woodwaste and thats why he wont sign that agreement. I can see that Carlo still thinks that only a few people in the city have problems with woodwaste. The alderman cant go anywhere they get stopped about woodwaste all the time. Carlo misses the point and the point is his friend is breaking the law and the homeowners and people working in the area have been sick. On some days that smell is a mile away. Then he gets mad when you call him friend but what else to call him. If it was anybody else other than someone that gives him money they would be shut down. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2009 : 09:30:27 AM
|
Exactly. I have not been happy with the Ward One representation on this either. This issue effects the entire city, not just Ward One. I have never seen the Alderman Nuzzo and and the Ward One councilors get together and put a piece on for Wood Waste issues.
Then I've seen some get mad and say "IT'S MY WARD"........ well then do something about it. I think 10 years is too long. Steve Simonelli had an outburst in May I believe, and was able to get a public meeting in October. None of the Ward One representation was able to do that. Then you have a Ward One councilor that insulted the meeting saying it was "useless' and was all Newburyport people.
Both of those comments could not have been any further from the truth. It was because of that meeting, that we got the state, the AG and the city to WAKE UP. Not only that, but the affects that Wood Waste has on our health and the environment. So..........something was learned out of the meeting, it was not useless.
I agree 100% that the Mayor does not understand the magnitude of people that are upset over Wood Waste and the way the administration has been handling it. People are upset, and they have every right to be and for out politicians to downgrade people's complaints only means one thing......money in their pockets.
I do not include Millie Cardello in my comments because I know she has tried, she may have been able to try a little harder but, she had tried. Unlike her fellow Ward One colleagues.
|
|
|
|
Wildfire132
Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 08:52:59 AM
|
| In all fairness to the ward one councilmen. This is Corneillio's first term and Napolitano was out of office for two years. Before then I remember him bringing Wood Waste to task for high piles and running heavy equipment up and down East Elm street to harass the neighbors. It was in the papers, he showed pictures and it is a documented fact. This topic didn't just pop up as of January 2008. Very little came up about Wood Waste under the Hanlon administration under which Simonelli and Millie Cardello served. I just think that it is a little too politically convienient to condemn the councilmen that were not there in 2006 & 2007 and praise the councilmen who were. The only councilman who made any noise about Wood Wsste during that period was Matewsky and ironically both Simonelli & Cardello are bestest buddies with Wayne. It's a bad situation but I'm sure it tough enough to get straight facts when you have an administration running interference for Wood Waste. Honestly I think that Van Campen has accomplished the most here by having his facts straight and coordonating his efforts with his colleagues before trying to make a point. A ward 5 councilor told me that part of the problem that the Common Council has is that Simonelli wants to do it all by himself and will not talk to his colleagues about it until he's on the floor. They told me that it has been that way from the very beginning of last year. I don't know if it's true but it could explain why they handle him the way they do. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 09:21:30 AM
|
I know Simonelli has tried to get other Councilor's on board. If you have been told otherwise, it is just not true.
The Wood Waste issue became hot and heavy during the mayoral campaign in 2007. Former Alderman McGonagle brought forward to the public, that Wood Waste was looking to move to lower Broadway. What McGonagle told us would happen, is happening.
As far as Hanlon goes, he would not advocate for Thibeault, one of the very few issues I agreed with Hanlon.
Simonelli is an elected official in this city, his fellow Councilor's should treat him with respect no matter how they feel about any given issue. One of the worst example's of rudeness on the Council was when Councilman P. Napolitano made that crack about the 5th grade civic's book. It was proven that both Napolitano and Erin Deveney were wrong and neither of them, to this point, have apologized to Simonelli for their very public rude and incorrect statements.
I don't always agree with the way Simonelli presents his issues but he is sincerely trying to help the residents of Everett. If anyone is playing politics with the Wood Waste issue, it's the rest of the Council with the way they treat Simonelli.
Think about it. Who is on the resident's side of this issue? Is it Simonelli or is it the rest of the Common Council?
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 10:34:33 AM
|
| In all fairness too during the Hanlon administration, the landfill was open. The landfill cease and desist was 3/18/2008. It was DeMaria who was in office at the time, and allowed Thibeault to keep bringing his trash here and has done back flips to help him over his money. His administration has blatantly lied on this matter to the residents and their ethics are in question. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 11:42:49 PM
|
There were a few issues from last Monday night's BOA meeting that I wanted to get into in more depth. Before I did that, I wanted to watch the meeting again. Since ECTV didn't replay the meeting Tuesday night (What the hell is really going on there?), I haven't been able to get to this as soon as I wanted to. But now that I've had the time to watch some of this again and really digest what I saw, it's time to get down to it. First, let's talk about fire engines.
From what the deputy chief told us Monday night, the city's full compliment of fire engines is five pieces and the maximum useful life of a piece is about 15 years. That means that the city should be on a schedule to replace a fire engine every three years. Police cars are replaced on a regular basis; why not fire engines? If you fail to do so, you end up where we are now, in a situation where you will be forced to replace three pieces of expensive equipment in a relatively short period of time.
In no way is this a problem that I'm blaming on the DeMaria administration. It is a problem that they walked into. But I am getting tired of hearing that being used as an excuse on any number of issues lately. I'm sure that there are things that the Mayor may have found out after he was elected to the position, but many of these issues are things that he should have been well aware of, being part of city government for has long as he has. And knowing these things, he still wanted the job. What I'd like to hear from the mayor on issues like these are clear, well-thought out plans of where we need to be and how we plan to get there. Just saying that a new fire truck is on a capital improvement plan doesn't do it for me. Perhaps, it's because we've heard about the capital improvement plan for the better part of a year now and from what we've seen of it, it's no more than a wish list with a few maybes on it as to the path for getting it done. More clarity is needed on these issues.
Let's take a brief look of the recent history of a replacement fire engine. The issue first surfaced when the appropriation for the new City Services equipment was discussed. At that time, the mayor answered the question by stating that he was working with Exxon Mobil to see if they might be convinced to provide the city with the funding for a new piece of fire equipment. That was the last that we heard about the issue until Alderman Marcus put the piece discussed the other night on the agenda. But along the way, we heard that Exxon/Mobil had made a commitment to give the city $60,000 a year that was going to be earmarked for the summer jobs program. Until the other night, we never really knew that the $60,000 a year commitment replaced the funding for a fire truck but we certainly had our suspicions. The question is what’s up with that? The city goes from buying a necessary piece of equipment to funding an optional program that couldn't get the support of the city council last year. Where is the logic in that? Sounds like a huge change in course to me.
I'm well aware that $60,000 won't buy a fire truck. But if the city went out to bond on a fire truck, $60,000 could go a long way towards paying off that debt and interest on that bond each year. If it is not enough, maybe some of the other large industrial concerns in the city, especially those that are potential fire risks, could be convinced to sign on to make their own contribution to the cause. Just a thought. To be honest though, I wouldn't venture down that path unless I was certain that I could definitely count on that commitment every year.
It's not very often that I find myself agreeing with Alderman Marcus but this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I don't mind if the city takes some time to review the stimulus package to see if there might be any money available to help the cause since it's out there. But that process can't drag on forever. The city has to be realistic about it and realize that the stimulus package is not the panacea that's going to cure all of the city's ills. Once the issue of the first truck is resolved, firm plans need to be made as to what the city is going to do about the other two and then the city needs to stick to those plans as best as they can. You just can't keep constantly juggling all of the balls in the air at the same time.
Just my opinion. More on another issue later. |
Edited by - tetris on 02/26/2009 11:47:07 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 08:07:08 AM
|
How much did the mayor say a new fire truck would cost? If the administration uses the $60K from Exon/Mobile and the $80K they are asking for a sidewalk sweeper, I would think that would help make a dent in the price of a fire truck.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 08:34:19 AM
|
| No amounts were mentioned the other night. I believe that an amount of $500,000 has been thrown around before though. A quick check around the net showed that amount appears to be in the ballpark. |
Edited by - tetris on 02/27/2009 08:35:18 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 09:09:24 AM
|
| Oh, okay, but we can commit to matching the state's grant for a football stadium...........priorities! YEA RIGHT. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 7:25:33 PM
|
| I was wrong. A figure of $500,000 was mentioned as the the cost of a fire truck during the meeting. Sounded like a guess-timate though. Sorry for any confusion about that. |
Edited by - tetris on 02/27/2009 7:26:47 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 10:42:33 PM
|
Next from last Monday's agenda, let's turn to the Wood Waste issues. As always with Wood Waste the problem is where do you start? First off, I would have much preferred if they had focused on the items as they appeared on the agenda rather than venturing all over the place. That's one of the biggest problems with Wood Waste, you can't deal with the whole thing all at once; it's just too big. There was no real need to revisit "he said, she said" stuff and the fact the Mayor caused a problem in Newburyport by revealing things that he had seemingly been told in confidence by Mayor Moak. What purpose did that serve? If you follow the Wood Waste issue at all, you know all about these already and you are going to believe who you want to believe. What we heard Monday didn't change things a bit. Time to put this stuff in the rear view mirror. But I just can't resist asking one more question before I go. Why wasn't the city's top legal representative in attendance for the entire meeting about what many consider to be the most important (and complex) legal challenge facing the city? Instead, the law office was represented for most of the meeting only by the member of the city's legal team with the least experience. No disrespect to Ms. Murphy, but that just doesn't make any sense.
So let's look at the agenda items themselves. I'm going to start with zoning ordinance violation because I feel that it impacts the consent agreement. Or at least, I'd like to start there; what do we really know about it? Not much other that it focuses on the piles, the same zoning violation had occurred at Wood Waste in 2002 and a violation letter was going to be issued on Tuesday. Beyond that, what did we really learn about it? The building inspector wasn't given much of a chance to speak and the city solicitor didn't really seem prepared to discuss the issue thoroughly (a recurring theme from Monday night that I'd like to address in another post when I find the time). In my pre-meeting comments on the agenda, I posted a copy of the sections of the zoning ordinance that I thought might come into play here. But at this point, I still have no clue as to whether I was on the right path or not. So what is this all about? Unfortunately, we'll have to go back to using a phrase that we got a lot mileage out of last year. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Before we move on to the consent agreement, let's address the issue of why hasn't this zoning violation been addressed before. To me, saying "This is new to us" or "Last time I checked, I wasn't a building inspector" are just other ways to say "We walked into this problem". If you read my prior fire engine post, you know how I feel about that. I'm not so much against, as others may be, the Mayor's chosen strategy of trying to working with Wood Waste to get the desired result instead of taking them to directly to court; I've posted as such in the past. Where I differ with the Mayor is the implementation of that strategy. To me, there have to be strict bounds drawn around it; the administration apparently has few. However, before you can even decide upon a strategy, wasn't it incumbent upon the administration to review the entire Wood Waste situation to the fullest? Find the things that have worked in the past and those that haven't. Review all possibilities. Search every viable lead. The DEP has been telling the city for a long time that they have broad authorities in this situation. If they have had problems in hooking up the DEP in the past, why wasn't the call made to the Lt. Governor sooner? It's pretty obvious now that process never happened, at least to the degree that it needed to. Everybody's going to have their favorite theory of why that didn't happen so I'm not going to address that here. I would suggest though that maybe it's time to go back to do the due diligence on Wood Waste that should have already been done to find out if there is anything else that has been missed.
As far as the consent agreement goes, I would say that is DOA but I'm not sure it's possible to say that about something that has been in the works for two months or more. If, as Mrs. Mejia told us Monday night, the latest hang-up with the agreement is over language about removing the piles and you issue a zoning violation letter that says that the piles need to be removed, wouldn't that effectively seem to kill the agreement? Most you that follow my posts know that I couldn't earn a living in Las Vegas off of my prognosticating skills. But in this case, it seems to me that this is the only likely outcome. But again, we'll just have to wait and see.
I'll finish up this look at last Monday's BOA meeting with some general observations when I get a chance. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 7:57:56 PM
|
I understand what your saying about revisiting the "he said, she said" but that issue (in my opinion) is a major problem. We are talking about the City Solicitor who adamantly said "We were advised by Jack Morris to go this route and HE said this would have more teeth"
We all know that statement alone was a lie. The administration can try and spin it anyway they can, that statement was simply not true.
Yes, the Mayor caused a problem for Newburyport and he had his own agenda in doing so. He wanted people to think everything is great, and keep delaying the issue.........just like the consent agreement that he let drag on too long.
I have no confidence in the Mayor or his administration. Just the way he yells at an Alderman for asking a question about a deteriorating fleet of fire trucks we have. There is no reason for any of that.
We are in the 9th month that Wood Waste agendas have been on the calendar and Wood Waste (even today) is having trucks flying in and out of there. The man is making millions off the city of Everett and after 9 months we are just finding out NOW that the building department can issue a violation?
Who's responsible for that mess up? The City Solicitor or the building department? This is something the Alderman have been saying all along and have been shot down.
I am totally disgusted in the entire administration for their lies, non compliance to the residents and their false statements. I too think a vote of no confidence should be taken by the alderman from just the evidence alone.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 9:07:53 PM
|
Tails,
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not asking for anyone to forget what's has happened or not to draw their own conclusions from whatever information is available to them. All I was trying to say was that it doesn't make any sense to keep covering the same ground over and over again, especially if no new information is going to come out of it and no further action is likely to be taken by city government on it. I can't be sure that we would have gotten any more information on the zoning violation if it was more the focus of the discussion but I'd like to believe that we would have. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 11:52:34 PM
|
Finally, let's try to wrap up this look at last Monday's BOA meeting with a look at a few recurring themes both within this meeting and from many recent meetings as well.
As I mentioned in my brief comments right after the meeting, it appears the Mayor is having some problems keeping his cool when he first takes the podium at these meetings, especially the BOA. However, after his initial appearances, he seems to somehow regain his composure for the balance of the meetings. Again, I'm sure we all have our own theories about why that is. As a general statement, all I'm going to say is that it's something that he really needs to work on; it doesn't put him in a very good light.
One specific criticism that I'd like to offer though is that I don't think we need a history lesson every time the certain subjects are addressed. For example, we all well know where the money to buy the new city services equipment came from. I don't think that we need the "chest-thumping" every time the subject comes up. To be fair though, I also detected a little bit of this same behavior when Alderman Van Campen revealed who was responsible for tracking down the zoning violation (although I think that there may be more to that story than we know). If the election rumors are true, I'm not sure if this type of behavior is appropriate for the council chambers and, if it continues, it going to be a long election season.
Preparedness seems to have become a big issue at city meetings lately. At the prior BOA meeting, the board members were chided for not being prepared to discuss the administration's budget cuts. But preparedness is a two way street. It's hard to believe how unprepared the city solicitor appeared to be to discuss the Wood Waste zoning violation. She had the same amount of time to prepare for the meeting as the BOA did for any budget cut discussion. How can anyone be sure that the city would be able to issue that notice the very next day without a through review by the solicitor? Maybe something has changed since 2002. I know that I'd want to make sure that all my "I"'s were dotted and "T"'s were crossed before that order was issued. It's things like this that make you continue to question whether or not the solicitor's office is properly staffed and/or they are involved in too many other things outside of their office. Also, the Mayor claimed that he was prepared to discuss the item about Everett's "shovel ready" projects. Although it was additional related information, I didn't think that reading from a press release from Congressman Markey's office whose two lead items were the only ones specific to Everett really qualified as being prepared. I think that the Mayor may have realized that as well after he gave up reading it after a while.
Not quite a recurring theme but one last thing from the meeting that I wanted to comment on. I was actually glad that the Mayor declined to comment on how much money is left in the Undesignated Fund Balance account until he had a chance to prepare for the question. The math on that issue seems to get fuzzier all the time. The city received $3.5 million for the old city yards; over $1.3 million was appropriated for the new City Services vehicles. We were told $200,000 was put aside for contingencies. According to the Registry of Deeds, Mr. Atwood's claim on the half of Fourth Street that abutted his property was settled for $200,000. Although it appear that the Mayor started to say that the city didn't pay for all of that, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that Mr. Thibeault picked up any of the tab for it, especially in light that he did not receive as much of Fourth Street as he originally agreed to purchase and that the city allowed the building to deteriorate so much while the sale was held up. Now, we find out that the city is also on the hook for other things (curbing, etc) down there. I hope that Alderman Marchese follows thru and puts this item on the agenda for the next BOA meeting. Knowing exactly how much of this money is left for other purposes seems like it will become a very important issue. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 3:36:46 PM
|
AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA
________________________________________
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2009, 7:00 PM, PETER J. MCCARREN MEMORIAL CHAMBERS, EVERETT, MA
PAPERS FROM THE COMMON COUNCIL
1. C0027-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To accept the donation of $100.00 from Councilor Joseph R. King to the Department of Veterans Services Gift Account to be used by the Veteran's Department to supplement their account. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
2. C0029-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To accept the donation of $250.00 from the George Keverian School Student Council Builders Club to the Mayor's Office of Human Services-Emergency Services Account to support the Emergency Program for Everett residents.(Passed sent up for concurrence)
3. C0030-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To authorize the use of $80,000.00 from the City Services Capital Outlay Equipment Vehicles Account for the purpose of purchasing the following piece of equipment: One (1) Sidewalk Sweeper. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
4. C0034-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To accept the donation of $2,500.00 from the Everett Co-Operative Bank to the Mayor's Office of Community Development Beautification Program Account. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
5. C0035-09 Order/s/Councilor Millie J. Cardello, as President
To accept the donation of $100.00 from John Rush and Family to the Stadium Renovation Project Account. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
6. C0017-09 Ordinance/s/Councilor Daniel J. Napolitano
Committee on Rules & Ordinances Report on Resolution amended to Ordinance and offered by Councilor Daniel J. Napolitano regarding people shoveling their sidewalks; with a recommendation for favorable action as amended. (Committee report accepted, amended to ordinance, further amended by deleting 24 hours and inserting 48 hours. Enrolled, as amended, sent up for concurrence. Reconsideration failed.)
7. A0068-09 Resolution/s/Alderman Wayne Matewsky and Councilor Leo McKinnon
That the Chief of Police be made aware that individuals stating they are representing a fund raising department of the Everett Police Department are calling Everett citizens, and residents are taking offense to the aggressive phone solicitations; with response from the Chief of Police.
PETITIONS AND LICENSES
8. A0091-09
Petition for 2nd Class Motor Dealer License from Ferry St. Motors at 152 Ferry Street.
9. A0092-09
Petition for 2nd Class Motor Dealer License from Woodlawn Auto Service at 3 Woodlawn Ave.
COMMUNICATIONS
10. A0067-09
Traffic Commission Report on Ordinance offered by Alderman DiPerri-That the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett Chapter 18, Traffic and Motor Vehicles; Article V, Parking, Stopping and Standing; Section 18-133, Prohibited on Certain Streets is hereby amended by adding Coolidge Street, no parking both sides for a distance of thirty (30) feet, from Ferry Street in a northeasterly direction; with a recommendation to refer back to sponsor.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
11. A0311-08
Rules and Ordinances Committee Report on Ordinance offered by Alderman Robert J. Van Campen-That the City of Everett enact a "Social Host Responsibility" Ordinance thereby prohibiting the services to and consumption of alcoholic beverages and drugs by persons under the age of twenty-one (21) at private premises located within the City; with a recommendation for favorable action.
12. A0014-09
Rules and Ordinance Committee Report on Ordinance offered by Aldermen L. Charles DiPerri and Robert Van Campen to Amending Section 13A-88 to accommodate the relocation of persons displaced from illegal apartments; with a recommendation that the matter be referred back to sponsors.
13. A0061-09
Committee on Rules & Ordinances Report on Ordinance offered by Alderman Robert J. Van Campen-In the interest of public safety, that the City of Everett consider enacting one-sided parking on all city streets annually between November 15th and March 15th; with an unfavorable recommendation.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. A0083-09 Resolution/s/Aldermen Robert J. Van Campen, L. Charles DiPerri and Michael K. Marchese
That the Mayor appear this meeting to provide the Board of Aldermen with an update as to the Administration's efforts at negotiating a Consent Agreement with Wood Waste of Boston, Inc. (Laid on table from 2/23 for update from Mayor this meeting.)
NEW BUSINESS
15. A0088-09 Ordinance/s/Alderman Wayne A. Matewsky and Councilor Millie J. Cardello
That the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett Chapter 18, Section 18-138 Service zones in Metered and Non-Metered Areas is hereby amended by adding to the list kept on file in the City Clerk's Office, the following: No person shall park a vehicle longer than fifteen minutes at 42 Clinton Street, from Tuesday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 6 p.m., at the request of property owner and business owner.
16. A0089-09 Resolution/s/Alderman Sal Sachetta, Councilors Rosa DiFlorio and Cynthia Sarnie
Paint curbs throughout City as a warning to aid citizens not to violate parking at 10 ft.
distance from a fire hydrant. Use summer program workers as curb painters (Paid with a $60,000.00 donation by Exxon Corp.) thereby saving taxpayers money and increasing awareness of the danger and fine for parking at a fire hydrant.
17. A0090-09 Resolution/s/Alderman Wayne A. Matewsky
That the Chief of Police consider enforcing patrols and possible covert operations in Lynde area at the request of concerned residents.
Adjournment
Respectfully submitted,
Caroline McCorry
Everett City Council Office
council@ci.everett.ma.us
www.You must be logged in to see this link.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
BOA 2009
