New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 27, 2008 8:25 AM

Whaahoo. 100,000 for reading but 10 Million short in Pilot... My question is how much time was put into the two??? Hello 10 Million short means that many other programs will be cut... But hey she saved her pet project!

Harp didn't show much sympathy for the Elm City's funding woes.
"It's certainly not what the mayor wanted, but it's more than the governor allocated," she said.

Hmmm know sympathy and no effort! Gee is she up for re-election soon??

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 27, 2008 8:26 AM

I will be ralleying my troops against her this year

Posted by: Mark | March 27, 2008 8:48 AM

Tax Yale.

Posted by: DingDong | March 27, 2008 8:55 AM

I think Harp owes an explanation to her constituents. For the suburbs to insist that New Haven provide them with tax-free hospitals and other services while also serve as a cheap dumping ground for social problems, fine, that's to be expected. But Harp supposedly represents us.

Posted by: oy | March 27, 2008 9:08 AM

We should either begin to tax non-profs the difference between what they owe and what PILOT pays or add a 1% sales tax in the city.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 27, 2008 9:25 AM

OY an Mark these are things the city does want, but laws do not allow them, this is what is happening in Hartford right now, trying to change them.

Want to complain!!

New Haven's state legislators who sit on the Appropriations Committee:

Senator Toni Harp
harp@senatedems.ct.gov , 860-240-0393

Representative Juan Candelaria
juan.candelaria@cga.ct.gov 860-240-8500

Representative Patricia Dillon
patricia.dillon@cga.ct.gov 860-240-8500

Representative Toni Walker
toni.walker@cga.ct.gov 860-240-8500

Posted by: Wiseman45 | March 27, 2008 9:47 AM

As a whole, this city is failing to reconize that belts are tightening all over the country. Within a democratic process, compromise is the key to moving forward. Sitting on our collective hands an crying that we don't have enough money to complete all the illustrious things that the mayor has planned AND provide the fundamental services needed to our citizens is unproductive and really speaks to the core of poor quality in leadership.

Sure, money is tight, but a long string of bad policy choices have also lead us down this path. Instead of pointing fingers at everyone but ourselves, the leadership needs to sit down and do an honest inventory of attributes this city has that can make for a viable tax base for which to draw upon.

Furthermore difficult choices need to be made about policy, pay raises, to the extent of social services inclusion, patronage, and the proper role of institutions that provide services. (The latter should be ran like their successful respective mission are the only thing that matters.) The population itself must be dissuaded from believing social services are a right, but are only a segway to independences from these services. (They are only temporary.)

Leadership should be discouraged from using the people's money in ways that leverage and perpetuate their livelihoods. (Be efficient administrators of the public trust and not Santa Claus.) They should be honest in their projections, and anticipation of need and work closely, within the democratic-republic structure of government, to coordinate their efforts with the State and Federal Governments - (cities are creatures of the State). And, finally, they should avoid extravagent purchases.

Following these types of guidelines will enhance the trust between us and others and would most likely help enhance our chances of showcasing New Haven as the flagship city of Connecticut.

Posted by: True New Havener | March 27, 2008 10:02 AM

Cedarhill -- Excellent post. And great that you have included contact information for these pols.

This is shameful. The Democrats -- maybe because their Speaker is running for Governor -- worked hard to actually present a final budget which was LOWER than Republican Rell's budget despite having a surplus. (Sure they provided a LITTLE more money than Rell to New Haven but we know she hates us -- they represent us.) Their insider politics are driving this.

Let them know -- we carry the region's hospitals, an expanding university and apparently all of the homeless shelters -- none of which pay taxes.

PILOT is supposed to compensate New Haven taxpayers for that. Instead, it gets cut every year and is pennies on the dollar of what it is supposed to be.

Who are these folks representing if they are not bringing money back to New Haven.

And how is $100,000 going to compensate for a multi-million dollar problem with prisoner dumping? A problem that exists only because we have the tax exempt services here and not in the suburbs. Are we sure these folks all actually live here?

Pathetic.

Posted by: king james v | March 27, 2008 10:06 AM

The State Reps. are correct, and now it is up to Mayor Johnny to put the screws to Yale and put toghether an audit for all tax exempt properties (there are several chruch owned properties that house commercial rents - i think if city looks deep enough we'll find there is some money owed us) we'll find some properties that need to be taxed.
Just because Destefano lost the election doesn't mean we can expect the state to fix our problems. I think now we'll start to realize the true cost of catering to untaxed, not legally here humans.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 27, 2008 10:45 AM

Quit drinking the City Hall koolaid - PILOT was never designed to pay 100%. That's a complete myth. In fact, PILOT has never paid 100% - at best it hit a high of 77% one year but has fluctuated anywhere from 22 - 77%. It's currently somewhere in the 50s.

Second, I would like to see the braintrusts at City Hall do a comparative study of the property taxes that would be generated vs. the PILOT program. I have talked to some people who note, it seems correctly, that on a square foot basis, PILOT projects actually generate more money than that property would otherwise.

Thirdly,Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale U both pay completely obscene building permit fees - some of the highest in the nation. In fact, according to one expert at Yale, the City of New Haven makes more money on its construction projects than the general contractor does.

Remember this good folks - the spin at City Hall is rarely if ever accurate or truthful. It is specifically designed to mislead, misinform and inflame the public in order to misdirect your ire from its lack of courage and leadership, its chronic lack of solutions and its endless whining that is is somebody else's fault that every year, it busts its budget and spends more than is reasonable. Forget calling the state - call Mayor DeStefano. In fact go see him and hang your coat in that new $3500 armoire.

Posted by: oy | March 27, 2008 11:45 AM

Gary,
Stop making stuff. Pilot payments are based on the same assments everything else is based on.

here is a link to builing fees your right $50 for an electrial inspection how does yale do it! www.newhavenmo.org/City%20_Dept_Folder/Building%20permit%20fee%20table.pdf

http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2985&q=383162
This program provides a payment in lieu of local property taxes (PILOT) for property owned and used by the State of Connecticut. The payment is equal to a percentage of the amount of taxes that would be paid if the property were not exempt from taxation. The payment percentages are 100% for facilities used as a correctional facility, 100% for any town in which more than 50% of all property in the town is state-owned real property, 65% for the Connecticut Valley Hospital facility, and 45% for all other property. Payment is made only for real property and does not include payment for tax loss on exempt personal property owned by these facilities or property used for highway purposes. Payment is made once a year on September 30th.

Posted by: RealEconomy | March 27, 2008 12:06 PM

People should look @ Waterbury sometime...Teikyo Post was nonprofit and the City got PILOT reimbursement. Then it went for-profit and started paying taxes. They appealed the high valuations on their property and won resoundingly -- because the city had a much higher number than reality in order to get PILOT. So when "the screws got put on" to get taxes the Waterbury got less money -- and in New Haven the same is true -- PILOT is a huge boon, with the City getting millions and millions in revenue but providing little services in return. Moreover, no other state has PILOT, so how do people get off thinking New Haven is screwed when it gets $38 million in PILOT. In the year before Mayor DeStefano took office the CIty got $15 million in PILOT, now it gets $38 million...only in some crazy fantasy world would that represent a cut!!!

Posted by: Darnell | March 27, 2008 1:04 PM

Wiseman, Gary and RealEconomy,

Ditto to all your points. What we should be doing is tightening the belt, not continuing to fund a monster budget that will never stop growing or slowing down. Why in the world, especially during a recession, would we propose an additional tax ion our city? Perhaps so we could chase more taxpayers away. I'm inclined to support it, just so revenues can slow, and finally people will get the point and vote this administration out of office. But, alas, being a home and automobile owner, I just can't do it.

Next year, he'll be blaming the federal government, and perhaps the Chinese.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | March 27, 2008 1:07 PM

Yale"s buildings cost far more to construct than structures built "for profit." They're valued (New Haven's assessor does the appraisal) at far higher per square foot than the "for profit" buildings. The asseessor has lots of "discretion" here. That's because Yale doesn't pay the PILOT. The State does. Nobody appeals Yale's assessments to the Board of Tax Review or the Courts. Moreover, real estate appraisals are based on "comparables." For Yale buildings, there are no "comps" except for other Yale buildings which are already overvalued by the Assessor.

Even if the PILOT is 50% of value, the City is probably deriving at least as much revenue from Yale buildings than it would receive if the buildings were on the tax rolls.

Plus, Yale makes all kinds of cash and in-kind contributions to the City -- according to Mike Morand, more than any other comparable university contributes to any other city in the country.

Finally, the City derives a ton from excessive building permit fees. These fees were instituted to reimburse the City for its costs in running inspections and administrative support. New Haven's gone far beyond and has actually become partners with contractors for a slice of profit.

Sure the State should contribute more to New Haven's costs for administering all kinds of regional facilities. But for that, we're going to have to switch to a more regional form of government and the State or the region must assume responsibility for a much larger share of New Haven's costs running all of the facilities regional residents use but don't pay for. How about having the state pick up the interest on New Haven's bonding for starters?

Posted by: Wiseman25 | March 27, 2008 1:17 PM

True

When does true New Haveners plan to abandon their paranoia and accept the fact that the mayor is seen, in some circles, as bit of a lose cannon. He so strongly desires to be recognized as a leader that he has gotten reckless with policy statements that many of his constituents expect him to back up with funding. He is now in the process of deflecting the blame, for these statements, by saying "If they would only do what they're supposed to and give me the money that I demand." The truth is that it is encubent upon the mayor to behave in a fiscally responsible manner in what ever he does - including the purchases of office furniture. It smacks of an rigidity of cognition which really makes me think twice about for voting him ever again. We need to change in way and cooperate with others in a way that inspires trust. This man's plans grows bigger and bigger despite economic outlooks. It's almost delusionary.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | March 27, 2008 1:39 PM

Its important to note that $10 Million wasn't cut by the State but that we misjudged the amount they were going to give us. In fact, we are in a position to guess this number every year. The reason for this is that our Charter requires us to do our budget proposal in March of each year. The state's fiscal year starts in July and the Feds in October. We are so dependent on these funds that we must change our budget year to October or November. Then we would not be guessing how much the state and feds are going to give us this year. We raise only $211M from property taxes in a $650M budget. We cannot afford to guess wrong on PILOT or any other numbers. This is what lead to the $17M shortfall this fiscal year and the controversial sale of the Transfer Station and the WPCA before that.

Don't let this news only turn into pressure on the State for more money, but like others posted here, put pressure on the Mayor and BOA to cut this budget. In addition to this $10M I just learned that since we get sued so much, we have exhausted our self insurance fund by about $14M. That is another number to think about.

Recent Shortfall News:
$10M less in PILOT
$14M in Self Insurance Shortfall
$430M in Early Retiree Healthcare
$17M 2007-8 Fiscal Year Shortfall

This is the recent news. Then we have major underfunding of pensions, and bonding debt for things like schools (the largest school construction program in the country).

Posted by: Hiscoolness | March 27, 2008 2:08 PM

I tend to agree with Messrs Doyens and Kerekes. Surprise, surprise!!!.
What will it take for all of us to focus on what may be the real issue withoug getting distracted by these funding sideshows? What does it take for this budget crunch to force the City to look to how it spends what it already has instead of shifting the focus to securing more money?

Others have pointed out that PILOT is a uniquely Connecticut form of State aid. When discussing Yale and other tax-exempt properties it is important to ask -- and try to get answered -- the question "What services do these tax-exempts consume, what do they cost the City and what do they contribute? Since about 65% of the General Fund goes towards Education, Police and Fire SErvices, we have to ask how much of these services does Yale and the tax-exempts consume?

The percentage of children of Yale parents who go to public schools and who live in tax-exept properties is less than 1% of the students enrolled in the public schools. We know that the Fire SErvices focus 80% of their activities on EMS services and Yale has it's own security services. I am sure someone at City Hall can calculate the total of all City services consumed by tax-exempt entities and net this out against payments received for building permits and suchlike. (Building permits fees are set at 2.5% of construction costs so Yale pays around $8.2 M a year in such fees)

This whole topic area is a distraction -- much like the Stetson library "closing" was. Let us focus on the 64% of the budget that goes for personnel costs, the unaffordable benefits package negotiated -- which generation of New Haven taxpayers is going to pay for the $430 M of unfunded liabilities for retiree health care? This number can easily outpace our entire bond debt if the actuarial assumptions -- made for the first time last year -- prove too conservative.

What were we thinking when we projected increases in PILOT payments, no decreases in real estate conveyance taxes, etc., in the face of a real estate recession that has only just begun to bite? The last one took 14 years to go from peak to peak so we may have quite a few lean years.

I really should stop reading this stuff. It exacerbates my depression and forces me to take long vacations away!!

Posted by: Esbe | March 27, 2008 2:15 PM

Cedarhill, as usual, has it right. Toni Harp cares a lot about small pet programs, but overall doesn't "show much sympathy" (to quote the article) for the broader concerns of the city. Very similar to her (successful?) attempt to blackmail the city into paying for parking for the employees of one particular state social service agency. (BTW, was that ever resolved, or is that land still encumbered by the Harp/Dillon blackmail scheme?)

It ought to be a top priority of our state delegation to fix the PILOT rate at a steady and decent level. It was originally supposed to be something like 75% for university property, but if we could get it fixed over time at, say, 65%, that would allow for planning and progress. As it is, the rate gets cut in tough times, right when it is most needed.

Posted by: facChek | March 27, 2008 2:30 PM

Missing PILOT
To all of you who are revelling against the state and Toni Harp please read more carefully:

"In her budget proposal released in February, Gov. M. Jodi Rell had shaved off New Haven's PILOT funds by $1.8 million. PILOT for colleges and hospitals fell from $38.7 million to $37.3 million; PILOT for state-owned property fell from $4.9 million to $4.7 million, according to the mayor's office".

In the current 07/08 budget pilot for state grants is:
$57.396.261M, If the governor shaved off 1.8M from the current figure, that leaves $56.404.261M

and the possibility is high that the New Haven delegation will be successful in getting that back into the budget, if not more.

The real problem is that we have become accustom to setting New Haven's excessive spending based on the expectation that the state will compensate and comply.

REDUCE THE THRIST TO SPEND!!!

Posted by: Steve Beck | March 27, 2008 2:32 PM

Get involved with 1000 Friends of Connecticut.
Property tax reform is the campaign focus.
They have a lot of information about this.
Go to www.info@1000Friends-ct.org

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 27, 2008 2:42 PM

With elections coming up do we have an viable people to run against these people?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 27, 2008 3:44 PM

jeffreykerekes and Your Tax Dollars at Work love your posts and agree to most.

Faccheck
I agree that the city also needs to REDUCE THE THRIST TO SPEND!!! We all agree to that.
We all complain in the city but few are willing to at least call the Alderman to task..It is budget time right now click on Jeffrey Kerekes name to get the wheres and whens on the Budget meeting and go. Or at the least make a call or send an e-mail out.....
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Shah (Chair), Silverman (Vice-Chair), Perez, Goldfield, Jackson-Brooks, Clark, Castro, Rhodeen, Sandman
They have alot of says so on the budget. Call them and voice you opinions. Below is the link to all the Alderman's e-mails and numbers. Even call yours if they are not on the list and let them know how you feel...after all the are your Rep's you voted them in.
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Aldermen/index.asp

Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | March 27, 2008 6:25 PM

Do we need a millionaire tax?

Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | March 27, 2008 7:20 PM

I think you're right on the mark, Steve Beck. There are much wider issues at play here. 1000 Friends is one of the ways to go. I hope people begin to get more active at the state level. Pension and health issues, for example, are major and it is very likely that that burden will ultimately have to be transferred to the state or federal government.

I also hope that everyone talking about cutting the city budget realizes that reductions in city services can end up costing much, much more than what you initially save. Just take a look at history and you'll see countless examples of this. NHCAN's goals to cut spending without causing any reduction in the quality of life or economic prospects of our community are noble (especially as they relate to encouraging more regional and equitable sharing of the cost of services), but study their specific recommendations very carefully before rushing to action.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | March 28, 2008 7:28 AM

In a recent NH Register article, the mayor was quoted as saying:

""Because the state's principal grants to the city are education grants, they have established a minimum expenditure. There is no flexibility to cut education," DeStefano said. "Unless we do something very foolish," he said, the city cannot cut pension obligations."

Larry Rusconi, the budget director testified on 3/25/08 at a BOA Finance Committee as saying that we are spending tens of millions more than what is required in order to be eligible for the state matching funds for education. Therefore, we can cut some things from the education budget without reducing money from the State. Perhaps we can start with the anomalies worth at least $500,000 we pointed out previously.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 28, 2008 8:08 AM

I have a question....
We have all these big schools....but we are pushing out the middle class working families with the real estate tax. Will we even need all these schools?? Or do they plan on filling them with kids that are bused in? Yes we are getting more rentals and more people but they are young professionals that do not have kids. So unless we save the middle class from exiting... we will have a reason to cut the budget on them because there will be less kids in the city to go to them...
A bit far fetched...sorry just a thought

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | March 28, 2008 6:36 PM

As a follow-up to my last post, the state requires a "Minimum Expenditure Requirement" (MER) on Education. Here is what New Haven was required to spend to meet the MER:

2004-05 $133,793,077
2005-06 $136,352,226
2006-07 $135,460,519

We budgeted $174,019,297 this year, not counting healthcare, retirement or capital projects, so we are exceeding that amount significantly. Therefore, the fact is that if we choose to look into the BOE budget for inefficiencies and waste, we can cut that out without jeopardizing educational goals or state funding.