New Haven Independent

Posted by: Webblog 1 | April 23, 2008 10:00 AM

Not going to happen!!

Technically and officially the 181 scattered site housing units are owned, operated and subsidized by HUD. The state in the past, has provided monies to local housing authorities for extraordinary maintenance repairs, but not subsidies. If the state were to pilot these units, the state could open it self up to piloting the other 3K units own and operated by HUD in the city.

Forget it Dillon, go scratch another tree.

Posted by: Ned | April 23, 2008 10:02 AM

From the Yale Herald archives : "The federal audit raised serious questions about New Haven's ability to independently oversee development management. Some excuses for the fund-loss scandal have included inadequate accounting, commingling of funds, ineligible payroll allocating, and approximately $773,342 in administrative overruns."
Of course we wouldn't want to have any "misunderstandings".

Posted by: What? | April 23, 2008 10:19 AM

The HANH ED gets a request for information from a State Rep, and he refuses to respond to it? Wow, what power our public servants seem to think they have. It doesn't make a difference why she asked for it, whether it was a "snooping" request (whatever the hell that means) or not, he is still obligated to provide this info. Was he reluctant to respond because it came from a non-DeStefano supporting legislator? This is typical of the DeStefano administration, ignore the FOIC laws, only respond when they want to.

Posted by: True New Havener | April 23, 2008 11:00 AM

Good for Pat. She definitely seems to be taking taxpayers' needs into consideration. Shame on HANH for not moving faster to help her in her quest.

That New Haven is only getting 59 percent instead of 77 percent for colleges and hospitals once again shows what a sham PILOT is. PILOT does a great job getting Yale off the hook for its ever expanding dominion but does not come close to meeting its intended payment to New Haven.

Yale loves to claim that no city gets more money for having a college than New Haven does but that is ridiculous. Other cities in America get more money per capita than New Haven from state government, their states just don't feel the need to pretend this is because of a college sitting there. Connecticut would be giving New Haven these dollars whether there was PILOT or not, they would just use another name for the funds.

If there was any doubt about this, it is easily overcome by the fact that the state changes the PILOT contribution percentage to whatever allows it to balance the budget. I have no gripe with that, it is just evidence that PILOT is a made up way to pass dollars to cities, while taking pressure off large non-profits.

Yale, which has so much money that Congress is investigating whether there should be a law to force it to spend some of it (along the lines of the requirement on foundation endowments), continues to flourish in a city which struggles. All the while passing out small dollar donations to keep the natives from getting restless at the university's expense.

And why does Yale have so much money that it has basically made college free for anyone whose income is less that 200,000 per year (something like 93% of all Americans)? Because it pays no taxes.

And what do the vice-presidents of this "non-profit" make? Well let's just say it was a long time ago that they passed the $400,000 mark. And forget about the hospital -- that's just a money making machine for the top brass.

Good luck Pat. I know this digressed but keep up the work on appropriations.

Posted by: RealEconomy | April 23, 2008 11:37 AM

Go Pat Go! But this raises the larger question of why no PILOT for the thousands of units in large family and elderly developments owned by the Housing Authority -- all of the tax rolls, generating no bucks for the City, while generating a whole lot of demand for costly city services. That property costs the City way more in reality than all the churches, colleges, synagogues, hospitals, etc.

The Mayor and aldermen might focus on public housing PILOT for a change -- even if it doesn't happen right away, the groundwork and strategy should be laid down. In the meantime, Representative Dillon's effort for right now is great, too.

Posted by: TruthfulNewHavener | April 23, 2008 11:54 AM

TrueNewHavener seems bitter! The facts are the facts, though. First off, Yale is nontaxable just like thousands of other universities. That's not unusual. What is unusual is that it does generate more $ for its hometown than any other.

Yale U is not the largest school in terms of endowment, budget, or student body size -- but it does make the biggest voluntary paymen and it faces the largest building permit fees of any peer school. Most schools pay zero in voluntary payments and all others pay zero or much less in fees.

UChicago, for example has a much bigger budget and student body size, but pays zip in voluntary and zip in permit fees. Columbia pays no building permit fees. Harvard, bigger in budget, endowment, and students, pays a smaller voluntary payment and much less in fees. UPenn, bigger in budget and students, pays no voluntary and less fees. And all of them are in states with no PILOT to boot!

Yale U occupies 4% of the city's land and generates close to $40 million in PILOT, voluntary payments, and exorbitant building permit fees. The total paid to the City for property taxes by all property taxpayers (including Yale on its taxable properties) is $185 million -- and that is from 50% of the land area (or more). Do the math, 4% generates $40 million, 50% generates $185 million. The City does pretty well by its large nontaxables!!!

Posted by: robn | April 23, 2008 12:49 PM

TFNH,

Yale doesn't "generate" PILOT payments. The state "pays" PILOT payements to New Haven to compensate for the presence of a non-taxable entity.

Posted by: edsicle | April 23, 2008 2:35 PM

The PILOT for federal public housing, which is all HANH has, other than Section 8, is a calculation mandated by HUD through what is known as a Cooperation Agreement between HUD and HANH and the City guaranteeing the same services for HANH properties as any other property in the City. The calculation relatively simple, Gross Rental Revenue, minus all Utility costs (water, sewer, gas, electric, oil) the remaining number is multiplied by ten percent (10%). That is the PILOT payment for federal housing program. HANH over the past years has had its utility costs exceed it's Rental Revenue, therefore, no PILOT.

If Pat Dillon wants the state to pay PILOT for federal housing programs, the other communities in the state will scream for the same thing, breaking the already cracked bank.

Posted by: Stop Lying Yale Shill | April 23, 2008 4:43 PM

Mr. TruthfulNewHavener -- you just made that all up.

Harvard does pay building permit fees which are HIGHER than Yale's. So you lied.

Just admit you work for the Office of New Haven and State Affairs cause you are dropping their nonsense talking points. Yale does not "generate" PILOT payments -- the taxpayers of CT generate PILOT.

If there was no PILOT, New Haven would still get these revenues from the state, they would just come to New Haven under a different line item name like Pequot funds or Educational Cost Sharing. Since Yale does not pay the state taxes, it does not "generate" PILOT. You know that too -- so like Yale's official position -- you lied.

Harvard pays less in voluntary payment -- really. Hmmm. And Cambridge is how much wealthier than New Haven? And Harvard's teaching hospital is based where (oh right in Boston) while Yale's is based in New Haven, not to mention that Harvard's business school and athletic fields are in Allston (across the river from Cambridge). So New Haven gets hit by both the university and hospital which eat up more land than Harvard in their respective cities. And when did Harvard start making contributions to Cambridge? Decades before Yale. But you know that don't you.

And Chicago -- Boy Yale New Haven and State Affairs had to dig deep for that one didn't ya. What percent of real estate does U of Chicago make up of the city? 1/100th of one percent? Not exactly Yale in downtown New Haven, is it?

The reason you have to jump from college to college and city to city is that each one has negotiated a different deal. Yale gets off very cheap even when compared to a bunch of other colleges also under Congressional investigation for running up endowments, paying crazy salaries; all while benefiting tremendously from tax exempt status.

PILOT is a joke meant to keep Yale out of the city's cross hairs. Just like the rest your comment.

See here's what's wrong. WE ALL PAY FOR YALE -- Because Yale does not pay taxes. Then Yale turns around, pays huge salaries to its top officials and tells lies about how generous it is to New Haven. Any generosity comes from the money it makes because it does not have to pay taxes. Which means we have to pay more taxes.

But I for one am proud to pay more taxes so that kids whose families make $200,000 per year can go to Yale for free and the President can build another memorial to some rich dead guy who exploited poor people his whole life to get rich in the first place.

And my tax dollars also went to pay for those union busting folks at Yale's teaching hospital. Lovely.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | April 23, 2008 8:54 PM

Good discussion.
Webblog 1, the state already has (very) limited PILOT programs for public housing, and we funded them this year.

sHB 5031

AN ACT CONCERNING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
This program allows the commissioner of DECD to enter into a contract with a municipality
and its housing authority to make payments in lieu of taxes to the municipality on land and
improvements owned or leased by the housing authority or the Connecticut Housing Finance
Authority.

Low- and Moderate- Income Housing Tax Abatement Program

This program provides annual reimbursement for local tax abatements of up to $ 450 per low-
and moderate-income housing unit for 40 years, in certain private or non-profit
developments.

It seems logical to me that scattered site housing be folded into the program. Given the high interest in PILOT programs, the topic deserves a fuller discussion. Even if New Haven taxpayers get some short term term relief this year, we should have a plan for responding to the pressure on PILOT next year. Hope that helps.

Posted by: Ned | April 24, 2008 8:18 AM

HANH can't even maintain the units it operates now. The program name should be changed from "scattered site" to "scattered blight". As for fears of an audit: someone call LCI, I smell something stinky.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | April 24, 2008 11:39 AM

Rep. Pat Dillon:
If the following is the Bill you refer to, it is barely out of committee and does not yet have house senate, and the governors approvals.
Also,
According to the city budget: "The low income tax abatement program($442K) was discontinues in FY08. The budget assumes that the program is not restored in FY09".

Question; would you have us support a bill which takes funds from the homeless services in order to limitedly fund pilot with 3.7M state-wide. That sum is paltry and when divided among the entire state of scattered sites would not even equate to the $442K lost in 08 for New Haven, and would not be worth the diminution of needed homeless services.

OLR Bill Analysis

sHB 5031

AN ACT CONCERNING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM.

SUMMARY:

This bill transfers funds from the Department of Social Services Housing/Homeless Services appropriation in P. A. 07-1, June Special Session, to the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) for the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and low- and moderate-income tax abatement programs. Under the bill, DECD receives $ 2,204,000 for the PILOT program and $ 1,704,890 for the tax abatement program in FY 08.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage

BACKGROUND

PILOT

This program allows the commissioner of DECD to enter into a contract with a municipality and its housing authority to make payments in lieu of taxes to the municipality on land and improvements owned or leased by the housing authority or the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority.

Low- and Moderate- Income Housing Tax Abatement Program

This program provides annual reimbursement for local tax abatements of up to $ 450 per low- and moderate-income housing unit for 40 years, in certain private or non-profit developments.

COMMITTEE ACTION

Select Committee on Housing

Joint Favorable Change of Reference

Yea
9
Nay
0
(02/19/2008)

Planning and Development Committee

Joint Favorable Change of Reference

Yea
19
Nay
0
(03/03/2008)

Appropriations Committee

Joint Favorable Substitute

Yea
43
Nay
0
(03/10/2008)

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | April 24, 2008 4:01 PM

That bill is not enough to solve the problem, and I said so. (iirc, it does help Tower One tenants though).
It does provide a model for PILOT for housing authority, and that's the point.
I'm suggesting that the state's current PILOT programs do not fully compensate the city for the full spectrum of tax exempt properties, and I'm looking to expand our tool kit.
This is absolutely critical for New Haven tax payers for at least two reasons.
One reason is that Connecticut is one of only three states that have no county government, so the full brunt of property tax exemptions is borne locally. Another is that much of our job growth in the greater New Haven region is happening on tax exempt property.
This is not a substitute for control over city spending.
I can't think of a reason to oppose a PILOT strategy. And I don't see how your response begins to remedy the real problems homeowners are facing.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | April 24, 2008 7:19 PM

Rep. Pat Dillon:

In an effort to be clear, and not answer to smoke and mirrors, I do not oppose pilot as a strategy and my response to your introduction of SHB-5031 above, does not attempt to "provide a remedy for the real problems homeowners are facing" as you stated.

I merely question whether this bill(SHB-5031) with it's negative affect on housing for homeless, is the precise method to "expand your tool kit".
Moreover it appears that the Bill takes from both Peter and Paul to pay Paul for that which we previously provided via tax abatement subsidy to New Haven in 2007.
I do however agree with your statement:

"This is not a substitute for control over city spending".
Correct,
The spending in the city of New Haven is the real culprit here. I believe you would do well to persuade this administration to get it's uncontrollable spending urge under control, so as to demonstrate fiscal responsibility.

Thank you for your insight.