New Haven Independent

Posted by: Gary Doyens | May 15, 2008 10:36 AM

Nobody wants their area of the expense side of the city budget touched. Unfortunately, there is just not enough money to go around. Keep in mind, these proposed cuts are the result of years of overspending, massive and growing debt and hundreds of millions in unfunded liabilities that don't even show up on the books.

These proposed cuts are minimal - they represent just 2.4% of the general fund and 1.5% of the overall city budget. Of the 102 positions that won't be funded - nearly half are vacant now.

The cuts fails in any substantive way to address the three critical areas driving city spending: employment - 5,180 city employees; a rich benefits package which cost city taxpayers 55% of each person's salary; and debt service which has escalated due to overspending on school construction.

In last night's budget and currently being considered is an increase in city debt of another $48 million due to state audits on a number of new schools. Those audits found millions of dollars of inelgible costs which city taxpayers must now fund. The debt service on this new round of debt is another $2 million a year.

Fun Facts:

There are 5,180 city employees vs. a city population of 123,000+. That's one city employee for every 24 residents. That's almost the same ratio as we have in the public school classrooms. Are we running a city or an employment office?

Posted by: Ken Joyner | May 15, 2008 10:54 AM

The Mayors budget details $10M plus in budget cuts brought about by a defective city budgeting process which falsely anticipated increases from our main benefactor, the state of CT. The state decided in July of 2007 the amount New Haven and other cities would receive. Rather than plan from this reality, the Mayor decided, in his state of the city address, to nevertheless move New Haven forward. This bold unrealistic move, as played out in the story above, placed New Haven and it's citizens in the uncomfortable position of competing with one another for needed services.

The public hearing focused exclusively on the reality of the impact of state's 2007 decision to maintain spending at the then budgeted level.

There was no discussions on the original budget decision in March 2008, to increasing the budget 20.6M dollars, most of that fueled by the 2nd of five phase-in, produced by the 2006 revaluation.

I tried to get the finance committee to focus on the proposed cuts to the general fund line items, and take into consideration the increases in the Capital budget, which in part, negates the spending cut for some line items.
One example was the parking meter revenue increase of 54K, matched against the Capital budget spending for the traffic & parking department of 50K.

Another example, first mentioned by Alderman Perez, is the proposal to increase bulk trash pickup @$150ea. While not considering the recently passed ordinance to sell the transfer station for 6M, or the anticipated $341K surplus anticipated for June of 2009. Coupled with the 700K of new spending for the transfer station in the 08/09 capital budget. I testified against this proposal for reasons as stated in the article above.

Perhaps the least considered aspect of this budget is the looming 700M in debt the city is approaching, presenting a daunting financial task for our children to inherit and to overcome, while they struggle to pay our social security and Medicare.

Posted by: Exiled Italian Shill | May 15, 2008 2:00 PM

Hard choice to make on this cut, but a cut I applaud as a tuff choice to make against a block of people that do vote in every election.

If I were Mayor it is not a choice I would have made. ...

I say say the center and cut the sacred cows!

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | May 15, 2008 4:58 PM

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir. ... (Casablanca 1942)

What do you expect from this system? -- It's legal, only somewhat corrupt --. Its existence depends upon loyal, voting supporters who, with their followers, just happen to be the folks who benefit the most from the system (created by them).

Well, there IS corruption BUT but there is no police department willing to investigate public employee corruption BECAUSE -- guess what? The cops are part of the group which benefits from the system as is. AND the charter gives the Mayor the power to keep the Police Chief on a short tether. It's called contract term limitation -- the ability of the Mayor to fire the chief at the end of a short term.

You move to New Haven because it's a nice place to live and you sincerely believe that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Then you find that a whole bunch of folks got here first and stacked the deck in their favor. This city is not a democracy. It's an autocracy governed by an egocentric Mayor and a group who run things for their own benefit from behind the scenes.

Posted by: For Real | May 15, 2008 5:22 PM

Sour Grapes, Gary Doyens? YOU must be unemployed, given that you blog incessantly at all hours of the day. Is there anything you find good about this city? (that was a rhetorical question - PLEASE don't answer it) All you do is whine. Given your endless complaining about New Haven, you could just...pack up your belongings and head out of town.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 15, 2008 6:04 PM

The alderman have till monday to hand in there amendments or attempts to.... want real cuts they are who we go after now the only problem is getting enough of them to agree!! There are some that do but why would an elected person want to be the only city in the state that can wear the hat of lowering the mill rate and for the first time protect there middle class....not as a reactive plan but a PROACTIVE plan to prevent more foreclosures prevent blight and lose the people that keep alot of these community's from falling apart!! !! Guess what renters think ohh well that wont help me....well guess who is paying the increase non-owner occupied home????

Posted by: In The Hood | May 15, 2008 6:57 PM

For Real:
C'mon now! You can't be serious...getting that personal with Gary Doyens. This NHI blog gives voice to all who remains civilized.

You can't really mean he should shut up or pack up because you don't like what he has to say.
I too disagree with him often. But I suspect that most who write here are interested in hearing diverse voices and ideas.

This is not a blog where we are supposed to all agree and cheer each other. Let's be careful not to cross the line. That comes off extremely limited.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | May 15, 2008 9:10 PM

After having distanced myself from the inner workings of city government for roughly 1/2 a year now, I look back at my tenure, as well as the current [situation]which the CoNH now finds itself in, and I sigh with relief in jumping ship when I did.

You can't manage a household, let alone a municipality, with a broken budgeting system. (I expected one hell of a tax refund this year, but got killed on the early withdrawal penalties on my pension... Perhaps I shouldn't have financed that lexus with $0 down).. Maybe not a great metaphor, but same premise.

In taking "heroic" steps to rectify this self imposed debacle, I don't see much *real leadership*. Give backs need to start at the top, lead by example. Laying off redundant departments is a decent start (althought I do feel for the newly unemployed civil servants, especially in the current economic climate) but these are tough choices.

From what I have read here (my only window into the current happenstances in New Haven) I do not see much creative problem solving to address the root of the problem, merely a crossing-of-the-fingers hoping to eek through this years budget, without any foresight into long term stability for the city. Pity.

Gary - I guess "Fun Facts" are not meant to be meaningful metrics. How many of these 5,180 city employees are full time vs. part time? I would find that to factor into the equation significantly.

Speaking of metrics, until the city can understand their own departments, measure efficiency and how the money they allocate is being (under)utilized, don't expect anything but the status quo. When city officials rely on agency heads who rely on front line workers to generate the stats that decisions are based on, its pretty apparent there is not much advanced planning going on.

Food for thought:
www.nyc.gov/cpr

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | May 16, 2008 4:09 AM

I'd like to know if the mayor also made similar cuts to other minority social programs, or just to these seniors who have no voice in this city, or political worth?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 19, 2008 12:44 PM

Fedupwithliberals
The cuts to these centers from my understanding at the most have only 8 to 15 seniors in them and have a pretty hefty budget. These seniors will have access to the other ones that are set up. And may benefit from a more active center. staff alone gets close to 100,000 a year never mind over head