New Haven Independent

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | June 12, 2008 8:36 PM

Is their a current report about what % of the top earners, (in the education, fire, and police departments), actually live in New Haven?

Personally, I'd feel a lot better about Kindergarten teachers making up to $80K/year, (along with benefits most of us would die for), IF I knew they were paying the same astronomical property taxes the rest of us are saddled with!

Let's hope the unions give in a little, particularly at the top of the food chain.

For a good look at who makes what, check out the 2008-09 City Budget here and start at page 95: http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/pdf_whatsnew/FY2008-09MayorsBudget.pdf

Personally I'm glad we're paying City employees great salaries. But in a time of need, for the Mayor to ask the unions to contribute a little more towards their fantastic benefit packages seems nothing more than just. Particularly those employees who don't live in New Haven!

Posted by: anon | June 12, 2008 8:45 PM

A better solution than job cuts is to make the city much more walkable. That would dramatically increase property values, retail district vitality and therefore tax collection. Just put a few little bollards out at the street corners to slow down the cars speeding around corners and almost killing people, paint a few more crosswalks, and viola - doubled property values.

Posted by: resident | June 12, 2008 9:24 PM

I agree TrueBlue that the Unions should not hold the community hostage -- especially considering that more than half of their members, and almost all of their leadership, lives outside of the city limits and therefore pays no property tax to us.

The Unions need to tie all of their requests to the condition that state funding of cash-strapped urban centers is increased; if that is not a possibility, they need to take pay cuts like the rest of us.

Posted by: kris | June 12, 2008 9:47 PM

Well well well..Johnnyboy gettimg an arbitrator involved..just like at YNHH last year.I am happier and happier everyday that 1199 didnt get into YNHH.Layoffs???Isnt it funny how the cancer center got held up because DeStefano wanted to force a union on yale and now hes fighting with unions that wont help him out and hes laying them off,and yale is always hiring(and building the cancer center).Maybe people will realize that union is not the best way to go nowdays.Thank you YNHH for good pay,good benefits,5% raises every year,plenty of overtime if I want it and most of all JOB SECURITY!!!

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | June 12, 2008 10:23 PM

While the average tax hike may only be 9.8%, and average means some are paying more. My increase is 18.2% this year alone on top of a similar increase last year.

I think that going into binding arbitration with a solid and reasonable proposal on part of the City should not be feared. I would be ok loosing such a decision as opposed to being afraid of entering into binding arbitration. If we lost, we could then go to the people and explain why the taxes are going up.

I think we should pay those we employ well. The question is, how many people can we afford to employ? Perhaps we cannot afford to pay as many people as the City currently employs or contracts with. My concern is that the layoffs will be concentrated in only a few departments rather than more effective as a City-wide initiative. Reductions in NHPD, NHFD and BOE should be considered as well. More is not always better or more effective. Perhaps all BOA members that are City Employees should consider resigning one or the other position so as to avoid a conflict of interest. Several alders had to abstain from critical votes due to conflicts of interest. There role is too important to be encumbered by a conflict of interest.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | June 12, 2008 10:27 PM

Nice, thanks for the link. Almost $7,000,000 in overtime. Wow. Right there is half the "hole".

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 12, 2008 10:29 PM

"Eight more city workers are losing their jobs, as City Hall sent a message to unions."... "It grew Thursday to include eight as-yet unidentified city workers who mow parks and sweep streets."

And yet, Brian McGrath still has a high paid job on top of his pension. Yeah, that's fair!!

Posted by: Sins of New Haven | June 12, 2008 10:29 PM

Fact - A buyout would SAVE the City money due to these factual circumstances:

1. Veteran municipal employees are allowed via most union contracts to "cash in" their accumulated sick and vacation time, up to a set limit. Each union varies on that specific limit.

2. it's cheaper to pay out what's known as "Separation Pay" now, rather than later because in the future that accumulated time will be worth more.

Here's an example:

John Smith works for Parks earning $32.15 an hour which is $225 per day and over his years of service has accumulated 138 sick days and 26 vacation days, to be paid to him at the point he leaves employ with the City. The City decides to give a buyout, which generates Mr. Smith leaving employ with the City and he "cashes out" his accumulated time, in this case $36,908
($225 x 164 combined days)

Hibspon "striking down" the idea of a buyout results in this scenario:

Mr. Smith continues to work for 2.3 more years and his salary has now increased 8.25% over that time. He now decides to leave employ with the City and "cashes out" his time but instead of it being worth $36,908, it is worth $39,953 (8.25% higher for a difference of $3,044)

If you offer a buyout the City could potentially save let's say 100 "Mr. Smith's" x $3,000 (on average) = $300,000 - that's well over a quarter million people and no families had to suffer - all because the City performed a buy out and saved money by cashing out now versus later.

Hibspon doesn't have the mental capacity to understand this and he doesn't add that there's another enormous benefit to a buyout, but again his obtuse attitude fails the general good.

The more "Mr. Smith's" the City parts with now the better, because any new hire (after 1998) CANNOT accrue sick time. That's right, the potential new employee coming in would not be able to accumulate sick time and therefore the City would never have to pay that out.

As an example, someone making the same as Mr. Smith ($32.15 or $225 a day x 150 sick days which is the limit) cashes out under a buyout and now you've set the table for a new hire which will never cash out sick time and the City avoids incurring the $33,757 ($32.15 x 7 hours x 150 days). By the way, $225 a day is just about 60K exactly.

So for one Mr. Smith the City could save $3,044 (with buying out now) PLUS
The new hire who now makes $25,000 less than Mr. Smith PLUS
Avoids the future $33,757 on the new hire for a total of $61,801 (3044+25000+33757).

Now take that figure of $61801 and multiply that times 200 buyouts and you get, ready for this - an amazing 12 million in savings ($12,360,200 actually). Of course let's assume that the City then re-hires 200 Mr. Smiths at an average salary of $35,000 annually which would cost 7 million which reduces your final realized savings to a HUGE 5 MILLION, (12M - 7M) which is very close to what the City needs. If you re-hire less, then the savings go up.

Glad you "struck down" that idea! Whew! We almost did something right for New Haven!

But no, The Administration is trying to make the Unions the bad guys, but the reality is that without Police, Fire and the BOE on board to share the concessions, there IS NO CHOICE but to layoff - unless Hibspon is bright enough to understand the math. So let's recap folks.

Under the buyout, Mr. Smith leaves happy, and cheaper than if he stayed on, a potential new hire comes in at base level (more savings) and the City never has to incur a future separation payout because said new hire cannot accrue sick time.

OR under Hibspon's "Early retirement 'costs us' as opposed to saving money" obtuse policy, people are laid off, the taxpayers lose the service of that employee and the City still has to pay unemployment and quite possibly incur litigation as a result of the layoff (of which policies are delineated in City Union contracts but are never abided by) and ultimately weakens the City.

It's not the employees New Haveners; it's the Employer that's the problem, led by irresponsible, ill-conceived policies by Hibspon. City Hall is run by people who think and act like company CEO's instead of stewards of the public's trust and benefit. The math simply does not support Hibspon's denial of a buyout.

Now employees will be left devastated in this economy, while people like Hibspon shoot down solid fiscal solutions due to lack of brain power and pass the loss to anyone unfortunate to live here, suffering under the Destefano Administration.

The whole story should be told, not just The Administration's side.

Maybe it's time the idiots at the top get forcibly removed, not the rank and file working under them.

Posted by: Elfer | June 12, 2008 10:42 PM

About city delegated layoffs the Mayor can organize a press conference, but about daily murders and children being mowed down his voice is heard in a deafening silence. Your time is up, the clock is starting to tick against you. Resign for a "personal reason" and spare this city more petty revengeful, unnecessary dread.

Posted by: omerta | June 12, 2008 10:47 PM

DeStefano is a really great leader. He gets his pay increase approved by his lackey board of aldermen, then screws the people who do the work.
If he gave back his pay hike he could possibly get some union support. Doing this just hurts the avearge Joe trying hard to get buy. Eight more forclosures looming. Tax payers must pay the price as they were stupid to vote for him.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 12, 2008 11:03 PM

This wimpy, sissy shot across the bow of the unions wouldn't scare anybody into doing anything. The mayor has taken huge chunks of the city employee pool off the table - firing lawn people and street sweepers from the smallest two unions and who undoubtedly make less than just about anybody in city government is a girly man approach. Besides, it was DeStefano and his administration who organized rich pay and benefit packages he's now trying to trim.

The truth of the matter is this budget was a fraud to begin with - the mayor built the budget on revenue he knew was unlikely; revised the budget based on givebacks he knew improbable. And the majority of the board who prevailed on this budget and passed it like it was real were too stupid, lazy or incompetent to hold the administration accountable. They all agreed to pass a budget that in fact was not balanced.

Now Goldfield and company can blame the unions for the high grass in the parks that he so worried about during the fake budget hearings just concluded.

Posted by: silent observer | June 12, 2008 11:05 PM

Tax payers should now recognize the collosal cost of DeStefano running for governor and neglecting the city for years. ... Don't complane that your taxs have gone up big time.

DeStefano hitting minor people is not going to make the unions do what he wants. They have to look after the interests of all there members, not just the lowest of the low mowing grass. If you want trash ten feet high in downtown. Sewers overflowing. Police and firemen doing nothing when your house is at risk. Diseases everywhere because city workers dont care. Continue with DeStefano. Read the international news on Naples now and you will see whats coming here.

Posted by: Time Out | June 12, 2008 11:44 PM

This is a biased and hurtful story. Cushy 3 to 4.25 % raises are quoted. Just look at the inflation numbers and you will see municipal workers are being short changed. How much has gas gone up? How much has food gone up? How much have utilitys gone up? All of these are 20 to 50 more than last year. Taxpayers only pay 9.73% more. I must pay this too. So yo ask me to pay more health and pension costs. I get screwed but the government gives money to rich bankers at Bear Sterns because they are having a hard time. The big fish always get there way. Look at DeStefano. He gets a big raze. $25000 to $30000. Yo think I m gonna care what happens

Posted by: priorities | June 12, 2008 11:45 PM

Thanks for the message, Mr. Mayor. Lowest priority, Edgewood Elderly and Whaley public safety. Next lowest, park maintenance and garbage pickup. I don't know, I kind of understand that these two latest hits are low on the priorities of public service, but I can't help but think that the salaries involved are negligable and that the labor they provide, if this is not a priority, could be well applied elsewhere. SoWhoWouldICut? I would hit the programs that are splashy and make New Haven look good, but which we can do without. Some are gone already, free wi fi for instance, cell phones for Aldermen, but what about the new recycling bins, large enough that I may now have to help a neighbor with hers? Killed I hope, until fatter times. How about the flowering trees... can't we do with what we have for now? How about the gasoline cops burn idling idling idling? For revenue, I would ticket pedestrians that can't figure out what the little red man lit up on the pole means - that should be a quick million in this town. How about Tweed. For the ten years I have been in town the best minds City Hall can deploy have not been able to make commercial service work. End the subsidy for commercial, if it is segregaged, keep a municipal private airport, and see what the future brings. 5 or 10 years may be a different market and airlines may then be eager to operate from Tweed subsidy free and pay for their own infrstructure. Why? Because the major airports will force them to reduce their operations due to fees fees fees. How about quit using Federal Block Grant dollars as a political reward and see if some can be applied by the City more efficiently than supporting the 200 nonprofit development feifdoms in New Haven. Finally, I know, I have to end somewhere, .... nah, I got nothing left. It is hard, I know. Good thing you've got low hanging fruit like soddists and broomers to pick on.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 13, 2008 6:32 AM

By the way, mayor and the BOH - (board of henchmen) my taxes are going up 14.6 percent, not 9.8 AVERAGE. I know you like to dishonestly represent a tax increase of less than 10 percent, this is my reality. Your letter talking about city values is a real crock. It must have taken the spokesmaven a long time to come with those lines. They're insulting.

Posted by: OES | June 13, 2008 7:05 AM

In the lay off scenerio, what actually happens is that the people who are laid off bump into jobs held by less tenured staff, who may or may not be vested into the pension and do not have the generous sick and vacation time accrued as many employees do. What I have seen is that you typically loose the really good employee and end up with a City Hall lifer who should have been fired a long time ago.

In addition, when people separate from the City, not everyone is entitled to their sick time (only people employeed before a certain timeframe are privy to that benefit, I believe the date is before 1990 and yes, I only know this because I used to work for the City of NH but was not entitled to any sick time when I left-which would have been nice as I had lots and lots of sick days but as a tax payer, I am glad I did not get it).

Asking the unions to pony up a bit is not unreasonable, as I am now in the private workforce, I pay SO much more towards my health benefits and for a medical plan with lesser benefits.

What I also do not understand is why the City does not institute pay ranges for positions? I know people at the City who do important but not Executive work (by that I mean having lots of responsibility, overseeing staff, etc.) and they make salaries comparable to Executives in the private workforce. Couple that with their incredible benefits and they are raking it in.

I believe that people should be compensated appropiately but as a taxpayer of NH, it blows me away that I am paying for mediocre service from people paid way above what the market will pay. Perhaps Hibson should do a market evaluation of all City positions (as is done in private sector) to see how City positions compare to the overall market. My guess is that the City would then be armed with some good ammunition to negotiate with the Unions.

Also, I have no problem having top City Executives run the City as they would a private corporation because it is a Corporation, leave the humanitatian work to the wondeful community based organizations in town and run a fiscally sound and efficient business.

Posted by: bigtaxpayer | June 13, 2008 8:03 AM

Lets look in the school construction program for money. I have heard there is a lot of waste and pilaging going on under that billion dollar program. I spoke with an architech under the program. He told me many positions were created solely for the purpose of raising money for political purposes. Never before in the history of school construction was there ever positions like "furniture consultant" according to the architech.But in the last 3 years or so there was many new positions created. Also bids were intentionally given to hire bidders ,he told me, by firms like merely because of political contributions. I am told there is maybe millions of dollars of wasted state and local taxpayers money under that program. After talking with him it seems like there was a feeding frenzy on the local and state taxpayer.

Posted by: newone | June 13, 2008 8:29 AM

There are so many made up jobs in the system its not funny(student coordinators,family educators).Start cutting all the consultants that are making a killing and are supposed to be RETIRED! Get rid of aramark(over a million).If the city needs that much money the mayor and superintendant should start giving up some of there pay first and be real leaders of the city and board of ed! They cut jobs from the people who already dont make a lot of money and leave all the people making 100,000 and up alone! this makes no sense what so ever and i bet more then half of them dont live in the city.Its time for a change in new haven people,AT THE TOP!

Posted by: James | June 13, 2008 8:39 AM

It's been said, so I won't beat a dead horse. But the mayor taking a large raise as well as increasing the salary for a do-nothing like Ron Smith while simultaneously cutting reading programs, centers for the elderly, and laying off laborers is shameful.

A). The salary for the City Clerk (a part-time, do-nothing job) should have been cut, not increased.

B). Why is there not more of an outcry to get DeStefano to forgo his raise, at least for a few years?

Who can we talk to about this? How can we start a grass-roots movement to push for the Mayor to make these symbolic but important sacrifices that he is asking the rest of us to make.

Melissa, Paul, Melinda, et al, when will the press directly pose this question to DeStafano? How can you, Mr. Mayor, eliminate important programs and cut the positions of hard-working laborers, increase the tax burden on homeowners by 100% or more, and ask the residents and workers of this city to make painful cuts in the name of hard times while simultaneously demanding a raise for yourself and your buddy Ron Smith? Can you actually justify that you are in dire need of this money and that you were suffering a hardship before receiving your raise? Can you tell us how many hours the Clerk has put in this year, or why he needs (or better yet, why he deserves) a raise for the minimal work he does?

What sacrifices have you made, John? How about you, Ron Smith? What sacrifices are you making for the city in these hard times? The amount you and Ron Smith received as a raise easily equals the salary of one of these men or women you plan to lay off - people who can least afford such a hardship at this time. Are you telling me that you and Ron are so deserving of an badly in need of your raises that somebody else has to lose their jobs? That's fucking despicable, both of you.

Posted by: ROBN | June 13, 2008 8:46 AM

Heres a shout going out to every jack-@$$ who voted for George W Bush and Joe Lieberman. The money we've spent in Iraq is the same amount of money we're paying in tax increases. So you reap what you sow...or rather WE do...THANKS A LOT!

Posted by: MORRIS COVE MF | June 13, 2008 8:54 AM

CAN'T UNDERSTAND ONE THING... why are these employees allowed to accumulate 100s of vacation/sick days over the course of their career? Then we pay them for it? In my office, you get 15 vacation days a year, and if you don't take them by December 31, you LOSE THEM. I don't get to bank them, then cash them in at a later date for money! What a deal for the career city employee, and a wallet-breaker for New Haven. Maybe if we changed some of these ridiculous practices, we wouldn't need to re-budget and layoff so damn much!

Posted by: iwasthere | June 13, 2008 9:49 AM

want to save money, stop supporting the id's, the id is now part of the municiple budget for 2008-2009 july first. has anyone in city offices know this yet. The city can save 250,000 or more in not supporting this idea, media has not brought this out into the light. You would have more people employed then the 2 that work in the id office, rental of equitment and other stuff.

Posted by: JMS | June 13, 2008 10:25 AM

Robn,

Exactly. People can debate the pro's and con's of anything... but in the end it all boils down to money. Every program... every position... every service... every senior center... they all cost money.

Where's the money? We know where a ton of went under Bush.

You want to start at the top? The top ain't Mayor John. Unfortunately it may be too late to right the spedning wrongs of the past eight years. But we can gather our forces and support a socially responsible Democratic presidential candidate who could reverse/redirect some of the cash flow in this country towards more productive causes.

JMS

Posted by: K | June 13, 2008 11:00 AM

Unions aside, I think the real travesty of all these layoffs is that loyal city employees - some of whom have worked decades for the city - are getting laid off while the Mayor's little 20-something-year-old political lackeys are still sitting pretty in his office.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 13, 2008 12:53 PM

hmmm first ditto on Robn's comments!

ok so we are laying off low level, pay nothing jobs??? Are there any consultant jobs on the plate?? Any town hall fluff jobs on the plate?? I want to know. Any of the BOE bulldodo jobs on the plate??? I see the mayor making the cuts...which I am for cuts (at least in today economy).
So city hall ops to cut 8 important jobs that effect the quality of life that the mayors letter (the one that came with the taxes) talks about.

Ohhh speaking of that letter, was that not a slap in the face or what. He was better just sending the bill.

Ok now back to what I was saying.....Why will this man not do the right thing??? Really it just makes me crazy! You cut senior center and sub stations you cut these low level jobs that are the ones we need! But you WILL NOT CUT the consultants and fluff jobs the jobs that will not effect our quality of life in the city!! Please someone explain this to me! I am waiting for to dodo to hit the fan when everyone see what there really increase is. I Pray it makes the people mad enough this time around that they seek the truth and take action!

Gary love your post.

Posted by: True New Havener | June 13, 2008 1:18 PM

I'm interested in what "fluff jobs" and consultants people are talking about. Not saying they don't exist, they just don't seem to get named. And are there $6 million of them? I just don't know.

These cuts are bad but then isn't that expected? You can't both complain about taxes and complain when the city cuts jobs. If there are different jobs you would have cut, then name those. Instead there just seems to be a lot of complaining with no basis. We can't have it both ways. Lower taxes = either job cuts or union concessions.

And here's another big problem in terms of where layoffs will come from and what unions will agree to givebacks. You can't lay off teachers which is the large majority of board of ed employees. Why not? Because the Board of Education already has too few teachers and has to rely too heavily on full time substitutes.

So the teachers union knows that the City will never lay any of them off since it has too many vacancies already. Knowing that, they will not give back anything on health care.

Instead they will offer up silly buy out provisions where the city pays older more expensive teachers to retire. Which the city will never give them. Why? Because the city cannot hire enough new teachers and already has too many vacancies so they are not going to take any "solution" which would mean that they have even fewer teachers.

This problem of too few teachers is a problem in cities across the country which puts teachers in a very strong bargaining position.

This means that the layoffs have to come from the other unions.

So any teacher union representative on this site saying that they offered the great option of buyouts of higher paid employees is spreading nonsense and they know it.

It is also infuriating that most of these folks do not live in this city so count me in as agreeing with everyone who chimed in on that one.

Just Saying.

Posted by: Kyle | June 13, 2008 1:39 PM

I once heard of a city that required that city employees live in the city.

Posted by: new havener | June 13, 2008 1:56 PM

fedupwithliberals
i agree with you what the hell is Brian Mcgraths job...beside supporting who the mayor wants to support for alderman or co-chairs..
the mayor reggie maio and ron smith should cut there pays....ron part time should be ashamed..sally brown does all the work...
i wish they all resign..

Posted by: Our Town | June 13, 2008 2:37 PM

"Lower taxes = either job cuts or union concessions."

This statement means you buy into Johnnie's snow job. How about, as was mentioned before, cutbacks in the legacy programs, you know, the Taj Mahal schools? I'd bet that delaying one school, one year would = $6 million, or, = lower taxes.

The problem isn't the unions, it's that Johnnie wants to spend your money on fancy things other than running the city.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 13, 2008 2:39 PM

Kyle:

You're right. That city was Chicago and Mayor Daly made every city employee live in the city limits. That way they would have a vested interest in how well the city was run and how city services were delivered. It made a difference.

Posted by: Our Town | June 13, 2008 4:53 PM

For those of you that are new to the city, New Haven had an employee residency requirement. It was rescinded due to a change in State law. At this point in time, only department heads are required to live in the city.

Also, the thought process behind the accumulation of sick time was to reduce absenteeism. Many employees would just take all their sick time, sick or not. Allowing sick time to accumulate supposedly kept employees on the job.

Posted by: In The Hood | June 13, 2008 5:34 PM

ROBN, at last we agree. The war is creating serious financial hemorrhaging of our government and affecting the country at every level.

If we really want to be p'd off...think about the resources- money, oil and gas, being wasted over there while we're being nickeled and dimed on needed services and resources here.

Posted by: steve | June 13, 2008 5:56 PM

I would gladly accept my tax increase if it was to be follwed by Mayor DeStefano's immediate RESIGNATION!!~ "New Haven All American CIty now in Ruins".

What has been the real cost to the Taxpayer's of Mr Big Ego's run for Governor. It has been the destruction of the entire infrastructure of the city. Everywhere you look you see chaos and incompentency at the top, yes Johnnie, you and your politically appointed team. Spending by itself is not the problem it is who is spending it.

Did you see anywhere in the letter inserted in you tax bill, any ownership for the out of control spending, overtime, millions of dollars paid for lawsuits , over building of schools and the burden of the bonded debt. No,it is someone else's fault.

How do you sleep at night knowing what a phony you are?

Posted by: Sins of New Haven | June 13, 2008 6:49 PM

First off,

James - Amen. You said it all.

Newone is right. You just have to know where to look. http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2008/05/bud2get-5.14.08_1.pdf

But...

You just need to know who to ask - Accounts Payable has copies of all contracts for the contractors the City hires, as does Corporation Counsel. It then would be a matter of obtaining a copy, but it shouldn't be a problem, it's public information because it directly ties into the General Fund.

Morris Cove MF

I'm from the Cove all my life. Here's your answer about how accruals work. Most workers in Locals 3144, 884, and many others have contracts that allow accruals of sick, vacation and personal time. There are multiple combinations of what unions allow what those specific limits are, but generally those aforementioned unions allow an accrual of vacation time up to 40 days. You carry over what you do not use but even for those that get to that mark, the system automatically never credits them for more than those 40 days. It's the same for sick time, but the limit is 150 days. Until 1998, any employee would earn 1.25 sick days per month of sick time for a total of 15 per year.

If you work for the City 20-30 years the sums can become significant. Ask for a copy of Ben Hunter's separation pay (and a copy of his 'suspended with pay' final tally too) and you'll see what I mean.

The same is true for Police and Fire and the Board of Education. Don't quote me on which unions allow what, but it's easy to procure a copy of a union contract from whatever union you want.

Fast forward to an ever expanding work force in New Haven that CANNOT accrue sick time beyond 7 days per year, which also is never "cashed out". That's why the buyout makes sense, more new hires instantly mean those people will never cash out 150 sick days in the future, the new hire now comes in perhaps 20-30K less and the cash out is less than if left on the books for a few more years because then the rate of pay is higher and therefore so is the cash out.

"Early retirement 'costs us' as opposed to saving money, he said."

Then there's the issue of contractors that are spread out everywhere, most of which are contracts between the City and that one person. It would be interesting to see that whole list for who does what for how much, but someone would have to be successful in procuring such information. Anyone?

The people who earn that time actually earned it. That's not the question, the question is how you disburse money over time that Hispson doesn't understand.

The other thing people should do is always read a copy of the City Agenda on a regular basis, of which you could get a copy from the Human Resouces/Personnel office. In fact it would be great if the City could publish it online each Friday when it comes out.

People should pay close attention to the Agenda.

Only there will you find out who was hired for how much, then all you need to do is compare it to the original job posting and hope it was awarded correctly, otherwise you have a problem.

Isn't it funny how the City reacted when Billy and Justen were brought to justice but when Ben Hunter was brought to justice the money involved in separation pay was never mentioned.

Fast forward to present day when you realize that Lighthouse Park in Morris Cove has the potential to collect $20,000 on one Saturday alone, but Municipal ID card nullifies that. Now here's the twist, no one is saying aliens shouldn't be allowed to go to Lighthouse, but the reality is that they get in free. Residents pay for their free passes as a result of paying property taxes when, for example you provide the Parks Department a copy of your car registration, showing data with a New Haven address and the nice folks at Parks give you your Resident Pass.

Remember the twist I mentioned? Well by failing to collect perhaps $2,500 to $40,000 in cash each weekend PARKS employees are getting laid off. Residents have to pay taxes but aliens do not and the result is Morris Cove residents that may work for Parks get laid off.

Maybe the City should repeal the waiver and ask for $10. Any person, regardless of origin will tell you that Lighthouse is a fine place for all people to come, courtesy of the work the Parks Department does. I know I sound like a cheerleader for Parks, and I guess I am, but the point is $10 is not a lot to ask and most folks would consider $10 a great bargain for a great day under the sun that's all.

But the Epic Fail known as the Administration is not in contact with the communities at all on this.

TRUE NEW HAVENER

Take a hypothetical contract paying and individual $76,000 a year for services. Sounds reasonable right? But maybe there are some 30K contracts and some 100K contracts, who knows. But Accounts Payable and Corporation Counsel can provide that information for you. Who knows maybe contractors make crummy salaries or maybe they make $75 dollars an hour, who knows?

It's sad that it's come to this. It could have been avoided. But you can't avoid idiots and politics. We're just in the way. Only this time instead of taking the hit, we should hit back.

COLLECT DOCUMENTS.

Posted by: tired and disgusted | June 14, 2008 2:46 PM

First of all the buyout is a great idea and would work, besides the Mayor giving back in good faith how about not wasting anymore money out of the general fund by picking up the slack for losing programs like the residential licensing program which is about 90,000 in the hole and was supposed to sustain itself but has not so in good faith why not cut this program instead of bridging the gap out of the general fund and the taxpayers pockets to support a losing special fund program that would be nice to see the Mayor look at this closely and also the taxpayers and the Board of Alderman should not let the city take good money and put it into something bad, if you read this Mr. Jeffery Kerekes would you look into the taking of general fund monies and the using it for bridging gaps in losing programs like the Residential Licensing Program that is not only a loser but overkill for that department, hopefully the board of alderman will do the right thing in july and just a footnote if the do not bridge the gap for this program the city will be able to save TWO GENERAL FUND EMPLOYEES instead of saving a LOSING SPECIAL FUND PROGRAM, JEFF KEREKES can you comment on this program and the city using the general fund for this program at a time when the budget is stressed, hopefully the city will do the right thing and if the Mayor and anyone who fights for this program with layoffs and givebacks being asked of, how in good faith could you ask for givebacks when you want take that money and put some of it into a losing program.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 14, 2008 4:22 PM

ok I am ONE PISSED OFF TAX PAYER!!!
has everyone got thier new tax bill yet!! Well I did not so I went on line to see what it was...
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/TaxCollector/C2GTaxBilling.asp

My increase is almost 16% FREAKen 16% some are as much as 18%!!!!

WTF what happened to 9%!!! Ha johnny MAYBE YOUR LACKYS ARE 9% But most are fining 15% and up!!! IS THIS LEGAL???? IS IT??? I'm Have had it!!!! this is wrong!!! their must be some law out there protecting us from this kind of an increase!!! really over the past 2 years the increase is what 30% that must be illegal PLEASE I BEG SOMEONE OUT THIER TO FIND OUT AND LET US KNOW!!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 14, 2008 5:24 PM

Paul can you work on a story of what the real increase is in this city??

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 14, 2008 10:44 PM

OK I got my answer yes this is legal because a large group of alderman voted to make this happen and Johnny signed it. The only way to give any relief to this is for the mill rate to go down. Which is a dream because we still do not even have a balanced budget. But we did have those few alders that tried to lower the mill rate even if it was just a little but most did not. so to those who voted for the phase in thanks for the 75% increase in property taxes over the next five years!!

Hey johnny make more cuts and lower the mill rate!!! We are in a recession!!!

Posted by: che15 | June 14, 2008 11:19 PM

New Haven is in a tough situation. I have enjoyed living here but it is not a place to raise a family at this moment. Why would anyone want to try to raise a family here if they could raise it somewhere else. You have groups of kids roaming the streets like packs of wolves ready to pounce on someone for a fing cell phone. We cant blame people for not living here. How many people live in new haven yet work in another town, should those towns prevent people from working there because they are from new haven? no ofcourse not. every town is taking a hit right now but i dont hear them complaining about where there employees live. stop worrying about where people live and worry about who does the best work. as long as the employees are there to save me, assist me, or protect me i can care less. i dont know about you folks but i want the best people helping me not new haven residents who may be unwilling to run into a burning home and save me, protect my children from gunfire on the streets or make sure garbage is gone from my house.

Posted by: In The Hood | June 16, 2008 1:45 PM

Che 15. your words below are insulting to New Haven residents. Did you really mean what these words below actually say?

'i dont know about you folks but i want the best people helping me not new haven residents who may be unwilling to run into a burning home and save me, protect my children from gunfire on the streets or make sure garbage is gone from my house.'

Posted by: robn | June 16, 2008 1:58 PM

CHR,

Your property tax increase is due to a few related things that don't have so much to do with spending.

1) The sales and prices of commercial properties was relatively tepid between the last assessment and now. (relative to residential) Even though value went up from $1.4B to $2.2B, commmercial property used to be 36% of total NH property value, and now it is 35%

2) Personal property and motor vehicle values stayed at about $.7B but used to be 18% of total NH property value and now it is 12%.

3) The sale of residential properties was wild and crazy and the new assessment (the reval) was done based upon these sales at the peak of the market. Residential propoerty went from 1.8B to 3.4B...it used to be 46% of total NH property value and now it is 54%.

4) The state mandates a uniform mill rate so commercial can be charged no more or less rate than residential.

So the new assessments (the reval) shifted a significant tax burden from commercial property owners to residential property owners. Essentially, whether you intend to sell your home or not, and whether you gain income from your home or not (unlike commercial property) our system regards your property as a commodity to be bought and sold...not as a home where you live, love and raise children. Our tax system is unpredictable, unethical, societally unstable and needs to be completely reworked.

Posted by: Charlie | June 16, 2008 4:40 PM

Most "leaders" take a pay cut as a symbolic effort to "share in the pain" everyone is going through. Not Johnny! No such mention of pay cuts for him or his staff.

But you know what? We deserve this crap becuase we keep re-electing this fool! And he'll be re-elected again next year. He ain't going with Obama, his arrogant a--- would want a cabinet position!

Posted by: Chris Gray | June 17, 2008 12:02 AM

No, but I expect he believes an Obama Administration might bail him out!