Left In Lowell

Campaign Season Has Begun: City Council Meeting 5.26.09

19 Responses to “Campaign Season Has Begun: City Council Meeting 5.26.09”

1. K-R-S Says:
   May 26th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

   so we pay OT? in what business plan does that make any sense!
   Problem is they don’t take care of the 105,000 people who live in this city and find it very easy to capitulate to the unions and the few thousand people who vote (unions or family members).
   Correction M, the rules that apply to Plan E, do not (or simply are ignored by )apply to the Lowell City Council.

2. Ryan Berard Says:
   May 26th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

   Well if people want action in government tonight’s meeting was certainly one way to give it to them. Let me first say that I am as far from anti-union as someone can be. However, this doesn’t mean that I think public officials need to repeatedly pander to them just because their membership is a reliable voting block. Here’s my feeling on this. Why is it that reform is always touted over taxes, but when actual measures are put in place everyone cries foul?

   There is such a thing as loyalty and believe me when I say I value it above most other principles, except maybe honesty and courage. The union employees in this city work harder than most and for this they deserve our deepest gratitude and appreciation. But, there are considerations that go beyond loyalty here. For example, there are restrictions on how certain funds (types of bonds for example) can be spent by a municipality. There is also the issue of overtime and how much any employee can actually work. In this case, I believe the best interest of the tax payers and the city were put before the union. Isn’t that what we all expect from our officials though? While we need to ensure that no minority is tyrannized, we also have to maintain order in the interest of the majority (all the citizens of Lowell in this case).

   Do I think that the city should hire non union labor to replace higher paid unionized employees, absolutely not. However, when there is extra work to be done, as there always has been in the spring time and as there will continue to be, then I can see the rational behind hiring temporary workers to assist with maintenance and overflow. There is no cronyism here, as some might imply. The union has a responsibility to its members to ensure that workers are treated fairly and with respect. In this case, though, I do not believe that the city was being disloyal, but rather pragmatic.

   Ryan Berard
   Candidate for Lowell City Council

3. Mimi Says:
   May 27th, 2009 at 7:27 am

   Ryan: Good luck in your campaign. I hope you can mobilize your contemporaries. We could use some young and new ideas.

   The irony of last night’s discussion was that this practice of hiring “summer help” has been going on for years. If it is not in the best interest of the City this year why was it in the past? Do we need to be in a financial crisis to bring efficiencies in government?

4. Just Me Says:
   May 27th, 2009 at 8:28 am

   Hiring seasonal employees in the past was ok because we had the money.

   As a tax payer in this city I would rather see it take an extra couple of weeks to get the parks in order than to see the city hire seasonal people. I feel it is a slap in the face to the city workers. The city knows what parks get the most use, do them first. Ask the baseball and soccer parents to help on their fields. I would gladly donate my time so my kids can play baseball on nice fields.

5. Resident that Votes Says:
   May 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am

   Here’s a question, if full-time park laborers are being paid say $15 /hr. and then overtime at time and a half how is this a savings to the taxpayer over hiring temporary seasonal help? I heard the Manager say on the radio this morning that $15,000 in overtime had been spent in one week to get the parks and cemetery ready. At that pace, in the six weeks the 5 seasonal hires are budgeted for $15,000 total, the City would spend roughly $90,000. How many jobs might that $75,000 difference preserve? And as this has been past practice for years, I can only imagine that it would all be done on overtime because the full-time employees have not been able to get all the work done in the past without seasonal help.

   I suppose another alternative would be to not hire seasonals or authorize overtime and leave the grass to grow and the trash to pile up in the 42 parks. How many phone calls do you think it would take to the City Councilors before that plan would go by the wayside and the overtime would be right back up there?

   As for volunteer help, I remember a time a few years ago at my kid’s school when parents came forward to offer to weed and mow the playground area because the grass was so high and poison ivy was growing, the parents were told emphatically that this was not allowed because the union wouldn’t tolerate it, they would have to wait until the city could get out there.

   As the saying goes, out of crisis comes opportunity, perhaps these are those kinds of times and this sort of creative thinking; volunteer efforts, flexible job descriptions for employees etc. will happen. I can’t help but be skeptical though, I’m not sure if the current council has the will, foresight and back bone to support the tough decisions that these times warrant.

6. K-R-S Says:
   May 27th, 2009 at 10:30 am

   have to agree with “Resident that Votes”.

7. Maggie Says:
   May 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

   I have questions > Why is it okay for city employees to build the new 911 center on a bond - but not the Early garage build-out? If worded properly , it should be okay to do both. Why is it okay for the soccer people to work on their fields but there might be a “liability issue” if the baseball people do? Despite the fact that is has been past practice to hire seasonal employees - why did they do it this year knowing they are planning layoffs? I am sure something else could have been worked out. The rumor fqctory has up to 175 people being laid off. That could be a major disaster for this city.

8. Walking the Halls Says:
   May 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

   Maggie,

   I hear you but the answers heard last night made sense to me. There seem to be some questions regarding the use of bond money to pay for ordinary city employees. I know from some other things that you can’t borrow money to pay for operations. I think the difference mentioned last night was whether its done on OT. Lynch said he’d talk to the lawyers about it. I do think theres more to the story. I’ve heard that things aren’t going well at the 911 center. Maybe Lynch doesn’t want to bring that up and get the union pissed off. I know I heard that the City would welcome more volunteer labor didn’t hear anything about baseball liability. I know that the unions have not liked volunteers in the past. Don’t really know why layoffs matter. First there haven’t been any and second how’s the work supposed to get done without costing us an arm and a leg. Bottom line the CC was an embarassment last night.

9. kmm Says:
   May 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

   Just me…I like your suggestion of donating your time to maintain a local field/park. I think it would be a great idea if people who utilize parks and playgrounds organized regularly scheduled “clean-up” days…if 20 people each spent 1 hour per week taking care of a park it might make a small positive financial impact. However, I have found that people tend to lose their sense of committment around July.

   Yesterday a friend, who does not live in my neighborhood, brought his own lawnmower to cut the grass in our neighborhood park because it was up to our knees (hint, hint…we’re looking for a used “push mower” if anyone has one tucked-away somewhere). Everyone is so thankful to him. Richard you’re the best!

   As for the city and the unions…2010 will be an economic disaster not experienced by anyone much younger than 65 y.o. People are going to be laid-off, city services will diminish; someone has to to be the “grown-up” and prioritize. The only way I will vote for a current city councilor is if one of them shows up at the next meeting with a “priority list”.

10. Mimi Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Now that I re-read my post, I should have made it clear that what really got me angry was not that the “usual suspects CCs” were criticing Bernie’s decision of spending $15,000, but that they were mad he gave the $15,000 to one entity (5-6 seasonal workers) rather than the other, City employees; those 270 local 1705 members have a lot of sway.

    This upcoming budget decision is going to be a lesson in character.

11. K-R-S Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    heh…she said “character”…heh, heh

12. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    “This upcoming budget decision is going to be a lesson in character.”

    I predict that this upcoming budget will not include the cuts needed. The bottom line of the budget will be increased and the CM will be told not to layoff workers…then the same CCs this fall will scream bloody murder when the tax rate is raised to the limit to pay for their re-election pandering. Of course the CM will be blamed for the CCs lack of spine or fiscal responsibility.

    Remember, the two largest voting blocks in the city are the elderly and city employees (along with their families). Cross them and you have a snowballs chance in Hell or winning or retaining a seat on the CC.

13. tryin to stay anonymous Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    I haven’t looked lately, but is there still enough excess levy capacity available to even try to avoid layoffs? They are telling the city workers even if they agree to forgo the 3% raises there are no guarantees of avoiding it. That money is (albeit a very symbolic) drop in bucket compared to the overall gap.

14. jed bartlet Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    From what I understand, Lowell is still a good distance under the levy ceiling, a relative taxpayer bargain when compared to other communities. Lowell’s had it on the cheap for so long regarding taxes. A slight increase combined with strategic budget planning and cuts could result in much less of a gap. Cityside of budget should also give less to school department to force their hand to do their part and keep cityside of budget from shouldering all the burden of this.

15. K-R-S Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    yes, we still have capacity to raise taxes to full levy. However, does this CC raise taxes and avoid lay offs or does it make the budgetary cuts based on the lack of revenue and cut staffing and services? This CC can’t have it both ways. They’d like to though!

16. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

    K-R-S you know how the CC works.

    At budget time our elected “leaders” on the CC are loath to make any cuts and certainly no cuts of workers.

    The tax rate isn’t set until late in the year…after the election…and that is where our brightest light on the Christmas tree councilors “discover” that because they didn’t cut budget items taxes will go up.

    Happens that way a lot in this city, that’s when the CC starts pulling money from “free cash” and think that they have saved the day! That’s how they created the multi-million dollar deficit that the old CM swept under the rug.

17. waittilnextyr Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 8:49 am

    The City has a lot of room with respect to the “levy ceiling”, but not all that much with respect to “levy limit”. The margin with respect to the latter runs about $5M, so the total property tax raised can increase by that $5M plus the tax on “new growth” plus 2.5% of the prior tax base. In the past couple of years the CM has kept the increase to generally less than 2.5% plus new growth. Increased State aid has helped fill in the remainder. However, with decreased State aid, that $5M will be quickly eaten up. If the State aid drops in the order of $8M to $11M as has been discussed, we can look forward to significant cuts and an increase in taxes, likely to the levy limit. That would mean an increase in tax rate of 7-8% instead of the 2.5% we were just starting to get used to.

    From MA DOR:

    “First, a community cannot levy more than 2.5 percent of the total full and fair cash value of all taxable real and personal property in the community. In this primer we will refer to the full and fair cash value limit as the levy ceiling.

    Second, a community’s levy is also constrained in that it can only increase by a certain amount from year to year. We will refer to the maximum amount a community can levy in a given year as the levy limit. The levy limit will always be below, or at most, equal to the levy ceiling. The levy limit may not exceed the levy ceiling.”

    The levy ceiling for Lowell is about $80M over the current tax base, so that will not be an issue, but the levy limit is only about $5M over, so that will be the first wall to be hit.

18. Kim Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    I live across from a park that has seen much less service this year then any year in the past. It gets me so upset to see the city workers on the corner of Andover St. mulching and cutting the grass again and again. There is no need for part time employees or overtime for the parks dept. They just need to spread the wealth a little to some other neighborhoods.

19. tryin to stay anonymous Says:
    May 29th, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Thanks for the info Wait.

Leave a Reply