| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2009 : 9:18:39 PM
|
I wasn't home tonight. Any news from the budget hearing and the special BOA meeting?
"Deb" |
 |
|
|
charm
Senior Member
264 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2009 : 06:49:54 AM
|
Deed Information
Deed Book: 33815
Deed Page: 225
Deed Date: 2001/10/12
Dwelling Information
Style: Colonial
Story Height: 2
Attic: Full Fin./Wh
Basement: Full
Year Built: 2005
Ground Flr Area: 2700
Tot Living Area: 6885
Living Units: 2
Rooms: 12
Bedrooms: 6
Full Baths: 5
Half Baths: 2
Valuation
Land: 158,200
Building: 690,500
Total: 848,700
Net Assessment:
the mayors home wish I had her families money |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 05/20/2009 : 07:19:45 AM
|
| Charm, I think your post is out of line & should be removed. Carlo’s home has nothing to do with how the city is run and he and his family have a right to some privacy. Obviously the information is public record for those who feel the need to know, but most of us are intelligent enough to know his personal financial situation isn’t any of our business! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
136 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2009 : 11:51:15 AM
|
These hearings are starting to bug me a bit. I dont like it when people are two faced. What was the problem cutting the celebrations line from the mayors budget even after Carlo said it was OK, since he was getting a five grand donation from Schnitzer? Was it nessesary for Rosa to argue over that and Carlo had to tell her it was OK.
She cut peoples livelihoods and had an office shut down in prior budget hearings and she has a problem saving a litle money for the taxpayers for a celebration line item?
Dont like what I am seeing already, dont like it at all. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2009 : 11:55:50 AM
|
It's Everett politics at it's worst.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2009 : 2:28:28 PM
|
I've been crunching budget numbers in all of my spare time since I found it on the city web site, only coming up for air a couple of times. But I thought I'd weigh in with a few observations before I head back to the grind.
I still haven't seen the whole special BOA meeting. But, in the portion that I saw, the Mayor was talking about keeping "moving forward" on projects; but, he was going to have to do it by coming forward to the council for transfers and authorizations to borrow money. It's going to be necessary because he didn't even fund his own reserve fund this year. I don't know how that's going to work. I can't see anything being done before free cash is certified. Even after it is, how could you pass something now if something more important might come down later. For example, I don't see any money put aside for settling the police and fire contracts. And I don't think that you can borrow money to cover ordinary operating expenses. It's going to be very interesting.
I couldn't really get into the budget meeting because I hadn't had the time to absorb the budget document yet. It might have been better if the general public could have gotten their hands on it more than a few hours before the hearings started. It also would have been better if the vertical and horizontal portion of the document had been put into separate documents so it wouldn't have necessary to rotate the document to read it.
The budget process is going to be very confusing because the budget document doesn't include the jobs that have been restored. Let's hope that replacement pages don't cause a problem. The council and anyone that tries to follow this in detail are going to need all the information they can get their hands on and pay very close attention to what's going on.
There was a mention of transferring parking meter receipts to the general fund to cover a portion of the parking clerk's expenses. That's what I thought they were going to do last year but it ended up getting screwed up. I'll have to research that as I don't think we want to see that mistake be repeated.
The budget document is a 99% improvement over last year. Couldn't give it 100% because it still contain a few errors, i.e., the erroneous parking clerk increase. The budget document is also lacking totals and a date it was created. The lack of totals again is probably more of a concern to me as it made my verification of data entered into my spreadsheet harder. I'm surprised that no one asked when the budget was created as you have no basis for comparing the YTD expense totals without it. It was done before the snow removal transfers were approved and entered into those systems though as those amounts are not reflected in those line items. Less detail was provided on the the school budget than in the last two years. That's probably OK as it likely won't generate any discussion anyways.
Unfortunately (or maybe not), a good number of no-show committee members. A lot of the usual suspects missing (Ranieri, Sierra, McKinnon to name three). I'll have to take attendance if (O.K. when), I catch a replay. I wish Mr. Burley would used his microphone when he spoke.
I guess the war between Councilor Simonelli and the administration continues, i.e., his targeting of the Chief of Staff for a salary reduction. And he seems to be on an island by himself as no one would second it.
Why did Alderman Matewsky vote against the Parking Clerk cut when it was just explained to him that it was an error being corrected?
So far, $4,450 cut from the budget. $1,950 from Parking Clerk Salaries and $2,500 from the Mayor's Recognition and Awards. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2009 : 3:44:00 PM
|
| The scanned budget was VERY sloppy......blank pages and sideways....come on. It would only have taken a few minutes to edit that, I’d be embarrassed. |
|
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2009 : 9:31:50 PM
|
| that is correct free cash and tax the residents in the future |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2009 : 11:50:36 PM
|
I had a chance to catch portions of the initial budget hearing again this weekend as well as spending a little bit more time reviewing the budget. I probably would have held off on most of these comments until the Saturday's budget hearings but I think that there is one major issue that deserves to be addressed before that. But, we'll deal with that one last.
Last time, I pointed out three members of the City Council that didn't show up at the first round of budget hearings. I only think that it's fair to update that information to include everyone. Marcus and King also were apparently no shows as well. Both Matewsky and Smith weren't there for roll call but showed at some later point. And it appears that Marchese left some time soon after roll call. That's the best I could do; it's hard keeping track of all of them when you have to rely on whatever shots ECTV decide to show.
I'm usually all for saving money but I'm really not so sure that the Mayor should be sneaking into Mayor's conferences. It's not something that I believe should have been announced on TV anyways.
Last year, we were promised that a number of items that the city was paying for annually in some fashion would be included in the budget this year. As best as I can recall, there were three of these items: an annual appropriation for the employee leave buyback program, an appropriation for the after school program and the city's half of the stadium bleacher rentals (I know). I'm happy to report that all three of them where included in the proposed budget so that they won't require an appropriation down the line.
And finally, I think that there's a lot of confusion about exactly what the result of last week's transfer of $947,701 to the tax levy actually accomplished, Going back and looking at it again, I think that the transfer accomplishes exactly what it said it did, transfer money to the tax levy. Transferring money to the levy, of and by itself, does not restore jobs. It just reduces the amount of the tax levy that needs to be raised by property taxes. In order to actually restore the jobs, I would think that the City Council may have to, at some point, also accept some kind of motion of accept adjustments to the budget itself. Since the proposed budget was only referred out of the joint convention to the Committee of the Whole, I'm guessing that it would be a simple process to refer out some adjustments to the actual appropriations as well. The funding for these adjustments is already in place so that, in the end, it will cost the taxpayers the same amount as if the jobs weren't restored and the transfer to the levy wasn't made. At least that's the way that I'd address it to avoid any issues down the line. |
Edited by - tetris on 05/25/2009 11:57:45 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2009 : 10:51:50 AM
|
I still think it was handled improperly.
I hope some tough questions are asked because to me, that 947,700 transfer is nothing more than an addendum to the FY10 budget. To me, it should have been handled as addendums to each and every department. It amazes me that the “bait and switch” was handled this way. The budget is still one million dollars more that announced.
Politically, it was only PR move, he wanted to say the budget was lower than it was. I call a spade and spade.
|
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2009 : 10:57:50 AM
|
"Absopositivelyfreakinlutely"
"Cruller DaHville"
 |
|
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 6:17:14 PM
|
| school budget going on now |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 10:10:36 PM
|
Watched the budget hearings on the School Department FY10 Budget tonight. About what you would expect. A couple of comments though but first, attendance.
Among the missing from the City Council: Marchese, Matewsky, Sachetta, Smith, McKinnon, B. Cardello. Marcus showed up late. Wish that he didn't, we'll get to him later.
And to be fair, among the missing from the School Committee: Baniewicz, Smith, Guiliano
All of the other usual suspects were around, including the long missing Joe Pedulla (he was around Tuesday night too). If anyone else came in late, sorry I didn't catch them. It was hard to because the room was packed to overflowing in typical School Department fashion. Sorry, I just don't see the need for that. The City Council isn't going to do anything to the School Department budget anyways; they pretty much can't.
Mr. Ela gave the Reader Digest version of the same budget presentation he gave at last week's School Committee meeting. General questions were then asked. Then, the school department budget was reviewed page by page with questions asked as they went along. The questions asked seem to be fairly intelligent; but not having seen the school budget, it was hard to tell. I did actually get something out of the discussions though that I didn't realize or I had forgotten. Though the School Department pays for it share of its employee's health care, they have no involvement in health care negotiations; that's solely the city's responsibility.
Something needs to be done about making the School Department budget more accessible. If the city web site is going to win a Common Cause award that requires budget information to be available, the School Department Budget should be part of the web site's budget information. Or it could be on the School Department's web site. It makes no difference to me; let's just see it.
It was stated that the city would be contributing over $300,000 more to the schools this year. However, it is never made clear than $200,000 increase for Special Education transportation will also be picked up by the city as it is another expense that can't be included in Net School Spending. It's never denied, but just left hanging there. And no one ever mentions how much money is been paid every year to pay off loans for the new and remodeled schools. Since there was not really much whining this year about how the School Department gets the short end of the stick from the city, I'll let that slide this year. Anyone should be able to find that information in the city budget if you are interested.
Jason Marcus is almost beyond words. First, he had to draw attention to himself to make it known that he was there. The first words out of his mouth were to say that he didn't know they were bothering to go thru the process when the School Department needs every dollar they can get their hands on (who doesn't?). Alderman Van Campen let it be known that it was the City Council's responsibility to review the budget and educate the public about it as well. The next time that Marcus opened his mouth was to praise the School Department for the fact that Everett is one of the few communities left that does charge user fees for extracurricular activities. He said that the student don't know how good they had it. FFF corrected him that the students do know how good they have it and are very appreciative of it. 0 for 2, Alderman Marcus. And although there were some lighter moments at the meeting, Marcus really needs to be aware that he wasn't part of any of them; his act is getting older and staler every time. And for someone who is the chamber all the time, how doesn't he realize that he needs to use a microphone? When the meeting was over, Marcus was the first one to the door. Hope that it didn't hit him on the way out. |
|
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 04:15:36 AM
|
| was there a wig on his head lol, his case is coming to court very soon |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2009 : 05:59:08 AM
|
It was hard to because the room was packed to overflowing in typical School Department fashion. Sorry, I just don't see the need for that. The City Council isn't going to do anything to the School Department budget anyways; they pretty much can't. Tetris
I umderstand what you are saying Tet; however, it's nice to see that there's "an issue" that will motivate people to appear.
There are several issues, we discuss on this very venue, that would be dealt with in a more profound manner if a group such as the one in attendance the other evening showed up. Something about people in the audience sparks a fire under some of these lack luster elected officials.
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Budget
