New Haven Independent

Posted by: Rob Smuts | June 12, 2008 12:42 PM

While small in the context of the overall size of the budget, it is not wise budgeting to fail to make annual adjustments in user fees to take into account thing like the gas prices Ald. Clark and others talked about.

It is the City's position that if the Board of Aldermen wants to make a policy decision to support individuals who might not be able to pay the user fees, they should pass legislation articulating clear and fair rules for when to give those discounts and budgeting appropriately. It simply is irresponsible to expect a city department to "swallow" unbudgeted costs like this, even if they are relatively small - the costs should be articulated in a specific line item and treated with the same level of scrutiny as the rest of the budget.

Ald. Perez has a well-deserved reputation for fiscal rectitude for focusing on even the smallest financial inconsistencies, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander and this proposal was wisely voted down.

I will work with Ald. Castro on a proposal to set guidelines for giving breaks on park user fees and budget appropriately and clearly for that purpose - and not try to accomplish that goal through financial slight-of-hand.

Posted by: Ken Joyner | June 12, 2008 4:45 PM

There is a much larger story here that needs to be heard by all citizen taxpayers who should judge the fair nest of these increases.

I testified to the finance committee that within the 07/08 budget the park dept. among others, received 5.4M in general fund monies. In addition, parks received another 2.2M from the capital fund budget and 451K from special funds. A total of 8,048M.

Also in 07/08 the BOA increased licenses permits and fees to an all time high for all operating city departments.

This year in the Mayor's (08/09) revised budget, parks again received increases in all three budget areas of more than 10% over the 07/08 budget.

The issue before us is whether it is fair and equitable to again raise fees while recognizing that:

1. As of April 30th, according to the finance dept; the city is on the plus side for revenue collected for license/permits and fees for all departments who charge.

2. The park dept. as well as all others received increases for personnel cost and material & services, the two areas the finance dept. testified was the reason for the need to increase fees.

3. In April this year the parks dept. hired 32 seasonal care takers to clean and groom all open park spaces.

It would therefore seem prudent, budget conscience, as well as, wise to avoid increases to city taxpaying residents who visit the lighthouse and other parks without the worry of additional cost to their family.

But no, to the contrary, this committee saw fit by a 5 to 3 margin to recommend to the full board, increases on top of increases.
What I called "quadruple taxation".

I ask, at what point, do we risk discouraging residents and visitors from coming to New Haven to enjoy a family outing, at what point do we risk civil disobedience in following the rules and apply for a proper license/permit, at what point do we risk continued avoidance to pay parking meters and tickets.

I believe that point has passed us with the 07/08 increases, we are now insuring the success of that discouraging endeavor.

I urge the full board to carefully consider the negative impact increasing cost will have on our residents and others seeking enjoyment, in this All American City.

Posted by: the trix rabbit | June 12, 2008 6:40 PM

This really is not all that complicated. Parks are only appealing when they are properly maintained. Park maintenance costs money. We don't have money, for a whole lot of reasons that are mostly beyond the control of the city government. If we want usable parks, we need money. For the most park, the BOA Finance Committee thought that this was the most reasonable way to get this money. Aldermen Castro, Perez and Bryson did not offer another way to raise this money, so their interjections were pointless and only made the meeting take longer. End of story.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 12, 2008 11:33 PM

Rob Smuts lecturing about what is or is not responsible budgeting is like a hooker preaching a sermon on morals on Sunday morning. Give me a break.

There is absolutely no relationship between higher user fees for "open space reservation" and the real cost of the parks budget. Just like there is no relationship between building permit fees and the cost of operating the city building department. The building department shows millions in excess receipts It's a bad joke.

This is simply about revenue and the city's unmitigated and uncontrolled need for more money because it has failed repeatedly to contain it's spending and because it endlessly depends on one time revenue and counts on other tax revenue which taxpayers were promised would not re-occur (conveyance tax).

What is irresponsible is suggesting the BOA adopt a budget based on revenue you knew was faulty; then suggest a revised budget with union givebacks you knew weren't real. In the end, the mayor's water carriers decided to force through an unbalanced budget. That's irresponsible.

Trix: It is doubtful you have read the city budget.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 12, 2008 11:51 PM

the trix rabbit
Who are you?? I say by most of your comments, you work in town hall. HMMMMM???? Stop throwing the Yusuf line.... close the Park ect. Doom and gloom bull crap that the city pedals to scare the citizens into not fighting them... that is there strategy and it works. Most may be happy being plugged into the matrix but their are those who are out there fighting the machine and free everyone from the the world of make believe that we seem to be living in. When Castro made her plea, I thought of my community and the things we can not do for it because of the cost factor. I also watch one person talk to her in what I saw as a very ABUSIVE TONE!!! Maybe what she wanted is not going to happen but she had the right to ask for it and she had the right to be talked to with RESPECT!!!
I thought my FAZE IN(really faze out the middle class) paid for my parks??? Am I wrong?? Am I not paying for the parks 2 times??? They were asking for the fees for parks to be froze not all the fees in that book.

Posted by: the trix rabbit | June 13, 2008 12:28 AM

Cedarhillresident:
There are so many things wrong with the first line of your post, I won't begin to address them all directly. Let's ignore reality for a moment, which, for someone who claims to be fighting machines by breaking free of the matrix, should not be that hard. Assume that I am some generic senior member of the city hall staff, and have a perfect track record of supporting all city hall initiatives. Why would that necessarily make me an enemy of the people? Do you really believe that the government is out to fleece you of every penny you have? And not only is city hall in on this, but 5 of the 8 people at the last BOA Finance Committee meeting argued for hours of their precious time, until they were "bleary-eyed," in favor of this $9 fee, just because they think its funny that you have to spend more money. You see, if we carefully examine the track records of the three aldermen who supported this measure, particularly Jorge Perez, we find that they are consistently fighting hard for John Q. Public, and they would never do something petty just to oppose Carl Goldfield or Yusuf Shah.
Only humble public servants like Migdalia Castro can save us from the tyranny of the rest of our elected government, by opposing a small fee increase for private use of our city's parks, despite the fact that she took absolutely no initiative in finding an alternative source for the money. I got one. Why don't we leave the fee where it is, and instead of hiring people to clean up the parks, anyone hosting an event will just have to come over ahead of time, clean the area they want to use, and then would be responsible for leaving the park spotless when they leave? See? I just came up with an idea of the top of my head, and I'm not even crusading against the majority of the Finance Committee in a tireless effort to save money for people.

Your accusation of me for claiming that this is a non-issue is childishly constructed and lacks much of an understanding of this issue in the first place. I gather from what you said that you attended the meeting. Do you have an appropriate alternative? Rob Smuts, who really is a senior City Hall employee, just said that he wants to work with Migdalia Castro on a workable solution. Why don't you, instead of pretending to be an educated and insightful critic of City Hall, research and type up a short proposal for him? That would be an actual contribution to this issue, although I think that if you're really that concerned, you should probably think through your priorities a little. This is a fairly small increase on an optional fee for park use. This is not being imposed on unsuspecting homeowners who just want to live in peace, it's asking people who use the parks for parties to give a little bit extra so that they can stay somewhat cared for.

P.S.-If you ever make it into the real world, don't try dodging bullets--that doesn't really work to well out here.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 13, 2008 9:42 AM

First , it has always been my stand that I am not an educated person in these matters. I am just a person that is involved in my community. ( so its ok if you try to put me down on that end, because I am not ashamed of you I am, but it is kind of sad that you felt the need to) I go to these meetings to learn so that in the future I can be more effective. ) My opinions have evolved over the past year or 2 because of this. Things that I use to fight I do not, because I learned that their really is nothing that the city can do but on the other end their are thing that the city can do that they are not.

I honestly think that every person at that table believes that they are doing what is best which ever way they are looking at it. I respect them for the work they do. And I can honestly say that the few dollar increase is not that big of a deal. But the purpose that I thought that the care of the parks was part of what my taxes pay for is my personal issue. If the city was spending responsibly they would not need these fee increase to cover things.
But I do agree with you about Castro in the fact that she is talking form the heart and that passion can go a long way. Which is one of the reasons I brought up the abusive tone I saw directed at her for trying to make a stand in what she believed in.

I would submit a proposal and might even call her to see if she wants some help. But you must also remember that I am involved in many different community groups that I have reached a limit on my voluntar time quota.
Just an add note:
Last year at our community gathering (we had a permit) the grass was over a foot tall and I was out their at 8 in the morning weed whacking the area not to mention having to clean the disgusting porto-potty. I DID ALL THE WORK that i paid for do I get a discount on my taxes?? I do have to say this year was a bit better. But we paid a fee for this!on top of taxes!! And because my community is a greenspace community we always leave everywhere we go better than what it was when we got their.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 13, 2008 11:14 AM

Trix: You write a lot and you say little. Cedarhill nor I or anybody else, including Alder Castro should have to put forth any proposal at all. It's a non-issue. There is no need for additional funds for this department. In fact, this department is clearly overfunded.

These fees are not designed to meet a need, they are designed and increased to bring revenue to the city which is then diverted to pay for other activities outside of this department - just like the city building department and I'm sure other departments as well. I know one individual in the city plan department who every year, generates grants way in excess of her position which then goes to fund others. Building Department generates millions of excess dollars.

As for this insightful comment from you: "Do you really believe that the government is out to fleece you of every penny you have? And not only is city hall in on this, but 5 of the 8 people at the last BOA Finance Committee meeting argued for hours of their precious time, until they were "bleary-eyed," in favor of this $9 fee, just because they think its funny that you have to spend more money."

The answer to your question about fleecing is yes, DeStefano's administration does try to fleece us at every turn because they think we pay too little. Smuts even said so publicly.

As for why the Finance Committee stayed up to discuss this issue, where's the surprise? The fee increases are emblematic of the maniacal search for revenue to fuel irrational spending. We're at a breaking point. Castro wouldn't let it go. Good for her.

But this committee and its chairman also wrings its hands and would rather spend its time with the encouragement of DeStefano et al discussing tiny, almost insignificant revenue and spending decisions while irresponsibly avoiding the large elephant in the room.

We have too many employees with pay and compensation packages we can't afford. That's why I have a 14.6 percent property tax increase in one year. Maybe if a few more of these lackluster rubberstamping alders directly paid property taxes, they'd get the point of our pain. The few non-opposition alders who do directly pay taxes would rather suckle in the warm busom of power than stand up for accountability and fiscal responsibility.

We deserve good government that employs best practices as well as a government we can afford. City of New Haven taxpayers get neither.

Posted by: beach bum | June 13, 2008 2:16 PM

I agree who would want to come to new havens lighthouse or other summer fun places that would cost more for a family to enjoy...most don't have the money..yea money check my gas tank..and utilities..
Oh Yea thats right the illegals with the ID cards they get it for free..right....thanx mr mayor i can no longer enjoy lighthouse...

Posted by: Claudia H | June 14, 2008 12:45 AM

Alderwoman Castro,
thank you for talking from the heart. As you can see you moved something, the result "some comments", some educated (very as we can see) some mabye not, others tring to be educational.
what more we can add? I will use the city bus pay $1.25 (If only this bus will be at time and runs more ofthen) and when I lived the park. I will make sure to clean my area.
Trix Rabbit: "Park maintenance cost money" thank you for the tip, end of story.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 15, 2008 7:17 AM

Dear Trix Rabbit,

Not enough money? You gotta be kidding! There's plenty of money to go around. Problem is, it goes to all of the mayor's politially connected, double dipping cronies like Brian McGrath, or useless programs like City IDs for illegals and questionable school employees with titles like "literacy coaches". The more money you get, the more you pander and blow it on. I say cut the budget by 50% right off the bat! Let the chips fall where they may. You will find ways to make do.