The current contract with Central Parking has a stipulation that the Parking Director CAN request an Audit at anytime. The City would have to pay for it but Central Parking would actually have it done.
However it should be mentioned that The Parking Revenue has increased in the City in the past few years.
With revenues increasing and seemingly all going well, why would the Parking Director, the Auditor or Manager request one?
Now that we have found out that Mr. Carney may have hid a theft in hindsight I’m sure people (probably led by the SUN) will state we should have done one…Hindsight is always a lot easier than the present.
I do think that the Audit should have been done last September or November when Councilor Elliot suggested it but the majority of that City Council sent it to a sub- committee so how can the Sun blame the Auditor or Manager? It was the Council that didn’t vote to order the Auditor to do it. But why let that fact get in the way of attacking the Auditor or Manager?
Speaking of hindsight, I’m betting that upon further review the Manager wishes he had actually spoke with the Assessor about the preliminary bills before they were sent out. I’m speculating that the two didn’t review the tax increase and that the bills were sent out has Sue Lemay explained in the same fashion that they have in the past few years.
BTW Joe Smiths comment about a 3.5% increase in last year’s 1st ‘projected” bill was 100% correct, it was a mistake and one no one caught until well after the fact (including the SUN) so it never got the play this increase is getting. It also is why the 3rd and 4th quarter bills were so low and make this newest bill appear so high.
Like I stated yesterday, there is NOT a lot to talk about, especially anything that is negative, so this “mistake” in increasing the 1st quarter tax bill by the full 2.5% gives the Manager’s detractors (and a lazy blogger like me) with something to write and opine about. The fact is, it truly isn’t a big deal and will make the 3rd and 4th quarter bills smaller.
Like the many non-issue the SUN has brought up against the LHA, look for a full array of stories about the Parking Theft and the Auditor. I’m sure if they can find a way they will take their shots at the Manager and Councilor Martin also.
I wonder if the Mayor is going to announce who he is appointing to the newly re-created Clerk/Audit Oversight Sub-Committee tomorrow night. Let’s not forget (and I don’t really let you) that he eliminated this board at the beginning of the year. Anyone want to lay odds that Councilor Elliot actually gets appointed to serve on it?
In the Council packet this week we learn about a couple former schools that were declared surplus:
39 Myrtle Street (former Varnum School) – The first Request for Proposals (RFP) on this property proved unsuccessful. The City is currently obtaining an updated appraisal consistent with the requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 30B and anticipates returning to the Council in the coming months for authorization to issue a new RFP and the new appraised value. Neighbors have expressed a preference for educational uses at this site, but efforts to entice a charter school, private school, or pre-school program to this site have proved unsuccessful.
It appears that the market for this property may lie in an apartment conversion, which the neighborhood group is open to provided the project is well managed and well-cared for. The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) will continue to work closely with the neighborhood and potential developers in conjunction with a new RFP
I’ve stated that my Mother In-Law lives next door and I’ll tell you that the neighbors who live on Beech ST. are 100% AGAINST housing unless it includes contained parking on the property and NO VARIENCE’S Granted..I’ll be monitoring this one closely, the parking is terrible on that street with many multifamily houses already existing.
864 Gorham Street (former Butler School) – The City received only one proposal in response to its first RFP for this property. The proposal was for an affordable housing development. Although it would have provided immediate benefit to the neighborhood by advancing the demolition of this abandoned building, it did not meet the City’s longer term objectives of using this site as an opportunity for commercial development.
Since the RFP closed two new parties have approached the DPD exploring proposals for commercial development on this site, both of which would also address the current blighted condition of the property. As a result, the DPD plans to reissue this RFP with a stronger emphasis on commercial development.
