New Haven Independent

Posted by: The truth | November 7, 2008 9:19 AM

Moti Sandman should run for Mayor. He would do a much better job than DeStefano.

Why wasn't this done years ago. DeStefano has had 14 years to get on top of the situation. To get this Smuts had to have his arm twisted.

Its time for a big change at City Hall.

Posted by: David Streever | November 7, 2008 9:29 AM

250k here, a few million in selling our recycling/paying less for our trash to be picked up, seems like some good ideas coming out of City Hall on the budget.

Is it really a surprise though? Mayor Destefano did build us a nest egg of over 15 million during his term, from approximatley 300k in the bank.

Posted by: joey A | November 7, 2008 9:46 AM

And the fire department will see none of it!!!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 7, 2008 10:24 AM

David
This is a good thing, people have been asking for it for a while West Haven did it. Bit the trash thing is going to bit us in the as! Just like the water authority is going to. This savings is only temporary. We needed that sunshine clause on the trash thing. And second..trash is becoming a commodity! Mainly recycling. This many have been a lose of revenue in the long run. Sadly.

But I am happy to hear about the fire dept.

Posted by: City Hall staffer | November 7, 2008 11:08 AM

The Truth - Right On! Sandman, Lemar and Sturgis-Pascale are the true leaders on the Board of Aldermen. Everyone gets caught up in the Perez,Goldfield,Sergio battles that the young ones are completely ignored by the general public. Anyone who follows the Board closely knows that nothing happens without one of the Sandman, Lemar or Sturgis-Pascale trinity carrying the water or doing the work.

Posted by: David Streever | November 7, 2008 11:28 AM

No, the trash thing is brilliant! it's been poorly reported, CHR! (Love you ps)

The trash thing is great, because it gave John the authority to renegotiate our contracts, which we would not have had otherwise!

Now we are PAID for our recycling (this is permanent, not one-time) and our trash hauling is CHEAPER! (also permanent!)

there are some one-time savings, which are good for short-term, but long-term this thing is working really well, too--you should call/e-mail John Prokop & ask him to run through the terms of our contracts! We get $28/ton for our recycling, & we pay only $44/ton I believe to haul trash. Up until now, we paid $98/ton to get rid of BOTH!

I know John is working on expanding the program, & if we could repeal the ordinance that doesn't allow recycle bins at condos/etc, we could make even more money as a city.

Posted by: Moti Sandman | November 7, 2008 1:08 PM

Hi All:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people that help develop this idea of bundled billing. I could take full credit but it must be shared, as my colleague from the 5th ward - Jorge Perez - pointed out this was mentioned in finance committees a few years before I joined.
In addition I had conversations with Pat Eagan - the head of the Firefighters Local - about this issue as well and these conversations were one of the impetuses that made me move on this issue. Pat should be recognized for his help. CAO Smuts deserves a big thank you for moving so quickly and not waiting for the order to pass last night but started working on the AMR bundled billing and getting us ready to bring in a new revenue stream when it is so desperately needed.
Lastly, I must thank my colleagues - BOA President Carl Goldfield and Alderman Roland Lemar for all of their work and input on this project for this was a joint effort in every aspect.

Yours,

Moti Sandman

Posted by: LTMike | November 7, 2008 3:52 PM

I think the billing is not bad, I am actually surprised revenue would not be higher though. The committee obviously had more information than I do, so I take their numbers as being accurate. Every little bit helps. Questions I have on this are: 'Out of city residents' billed only? Are services billed or just equipment used on alarms? Is this for just the 2 ALS units responding or for the 10 BLS engine companies as well? I need more information but as a city taxpayer and firefighter, I feel a move in the right direction.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 8, 2008 7:21 AM

Before you fall in love with your own brillance too quickly...I wonder why we think its so smart to pay twice for the same service? We already pay $30 million a year for a fire department that functions more like a medical corps and now, they're going to bill on top of that. Some will argue it's the insurance companies who will pay, but nearly all policies carry hefty co-pays for ER, for ambulance transport.

Posted by: citypointer | November 8, 2008 7:52 AM

While I think that the trash/recycling plan is great and hopefully will be implemented soon, I do not think that this is a good idea. Billing for city services, in this case emergency medical care, isn't that what our taxes are for? This would be along the same lines of charging for trash pick up. And I do not believe that the city will not have an "aggressive collection policy", especially when they need more money. What will happen to people who can't pay? A mark on their credit reports? The inability to register a car?

Posted by: Anon | November 8, 2008 4:11 PM

I've only ever paid for ambulance transport once, and it honestly wasn't that bad of a charge (I think it was $150 or $200). And even if that is a gigantic sum of money to you, it's not like most people are going to the hospital every other day in an ambulance. A lot of ambulance rides are taken, but how many times have you been in one this year? Maybe once, if that, unless there were extreme circumstances...? Any opportunity the city has to collect more money is great, and I don't see this as a "we already pay for this" situation. New Haven needs all the savings it can muster at this point.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 8, 2008 9:23 PM

Anon:

Perhaps $200 is chump change to you. To a lot of New Haveners, that's half a week's pay or more. The median income in New Haven is only about $36,000. I have never been in an ambulance but plenty of seniors use it often particularly since more of them are staying at home. It's a tired refrain, but it's true. The city's need for revenue is directly tied to its addiction to spending. Instead of layering on more taxes on its citizens, in this case the sick ones or the ones who have been injured in an accident is hardly fair. We're paying $30 million a year for firemen to function as a medical corps. Now, under this plan, we're going to continue paying $30 million in taxes so the fire department can be a profit center too.

Posted by: robn | November 9, 2008 9:01 AM

GARY,

I can't really back this up with published statistics, but I've been told that the fire department, as first reponders, are often called by people with no health insurance who want assistance with non-emergency illnesses. If this is true, then maybe a modest charge will work something like a co-pay, and make people thoughtfully consider whether or not they NEED to call.

Posted by: FacChek | November 9, 2008 1:00 PM

a "bundled billing" proposal: Ask AMR to bill for the city paramedics' services, then send a reimbursement back to the city, with a cut taken out for administrative fees.

Sounds more like a "double billing proposal".

According to the fire chief the department currently spends 85% of it's response time to emergency service and only 15% to fires.

The important percentage missing here is the percent of downtime by the NHFD, waiting for any calls for which the taxpayer is "bundled" by the city fire budget to the tune of 31MM.

Why the heck should the 911 emergency call go to the fire department, just route the 911 directly to the AMR who spends 100% of it's time on emergency calls.

The result?

"Pure money," said Alderman Sandman.

Another bone head RIP-OFF by this BIG 3.