New Haven Independent: City Looks To Beach For Bucks

City Looks To Beach For Bucks

by Melissa Bailey | November 20, 2008 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

heads%20in%20the%20sand.JPG As revenue streams dry up, the quest for a balanced budget has sent city officials digging at the beach.

At its meeting Wednesday evening in City Hall, the aldermanic Finance Committee voted to extend the season at Lighthouse Point Park so that the city can charge entrance fees to out-of-town visitors all year round.

The proposal came as a sunny interval in an evening of budgetary gloom, including talk of a spending freeze, possible rescissions and layoffs, and news of a looming $6 billion state deficit.

This fiscal year, city officials are working to recover from recession-related losses in interest income and the real-estate conveyance tax, as well as a projected $1.8 million overage in police and fire overtime funds.

Bounty At The Beach

One idea for extra revenue came from Bob Levine, the city parks director.

Under the current law, the city is allowed to charge entrance fees at the park only during traditional beach-going season, from Memorial Day to Labor Day. But each year, as regional temperatures rise, there are more sunny days outside that window when crowds flock to the shore, said Levine.

“When the weather is good, there’s many, many people who go down there at times other than Memorial Day to Labor Day,” Levine told the board. With the crowds come litter, facility maintenance and more utility costs, he said.

Levine asked aldermen to amend the city’s ordinances so that the city can start charging visitors on those warm off-season days.

The proposal wouldn’t affect city residents, he said: City residents can get free parking passes for the season. Anyone who walks, jogs or bikes to the beach can always get in for free. So the extra money would come only from out-of-towners who arrive by car.

The city would pull in about $940 for each extra day it staffs the entrance gate, Levine estimated. That’s $1,200 in gate fees minus $260 in expenses, he said. He asked to extend the season to begin on April 15 and end on October 15. Depending on the weather, the parks director would choose to charge fees at the gate, or not.

Aldermen welcomed the idea — and took it one step further.

“How about year round?” asked Hill Alderman Jorge Perez. He asked if there was any need at all to limit the days on which the city can charge its visitors. Levine said no.

At Perez’s suggestion, aldermen amended the item to extend the season at the park to the entire year, with services maintained, and fees charged, at the director’s discretion. The amended proposal met approval by a 7-0 vote.

Spending Freeze

In a monthly report for the period ending Sept. 30, Budget Director Larry Rusconi laid out how the city is facing its budgetary challenges.

On the revenue side, the city’s expecting a nearly half-million dollar shortfall in investment income and a nearly $300,000 loss in funds from the real estate conveyance tax. An extra $1.8 million in building inspection fees is helping balance the books, however, and Rusconi said he expects the budget to balance out by the end of the fiscal year.

On the expenditure side, overruns in police and fire overtime pay are putting the city in the red, as they have for the past several years. Under strict regulations imposed by the new police chief, James Lewis, police overtime pay is down 15 percent over last year. As of Sept. 30, overtime pay had run over budget by $1 million.

In contrast, the fire department has spent more in overtime this year by 23 percent, creating a roughly $750,000 deficit. New classes of recruits should alleviate overtime costs in both departments.

To balance out the nearly $1.8 million overruns, the city is rolling out an Expenditure Control Program. In a Sept. 10 memo, Controller Mark Pietrosimone told city department heads to freeze all unallocated, non-personnel funds, pending further scrutiny.

Pietrosimone asked department heads to outline their routine and one-time costs. If there’s a dollar in the budget that has not been tagged with a specific purpose, that department head may not get to use it. Finance staff are monitoring expenditures in hopes of making the $1.8 million in savings, explained Pietrosimone.

If that doesn’t work, the city will consider across-the-board percentage cuts or further program reductions, Rusconi said.

Rusconi remained confident that the city will bounce back this fiscal year.

“We’ve recovered from worse than this,” he said. Earlier this year, the city closed a $6 million budget gap through health, energy and waste initiatives as well as cutting 34 workers’ jobs.

Rusconi said he’s much more concerned about the next fiscal year. In FY2010, the city’s budget is estimated to grow by $20 million to $25 million due to increases in health care, pensions and salaries. The mayor has said that the gap cannot be closed through the property tax alone.

The city is not counting on any increase in help from the state, which is facing a $6 billion deficit over the period starting July 1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2011.

Rusconi said he’s already meeting with department heads to talk about where cuts can be made. The cuts would likely include significant reductions in programming and staff.

“What it’s going to come to,” he said, “is elimination of services that are deemed by our department coordinators as not essential.”

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Fiscal Responsibilty | November 20, 2008 12:07 PM

Reduce spending and bloat City of New Haven and the elected officals. You ran up the budget in last few years now run it back down and get rid of the political dead weight while you are at it. Do not look to continue to suck whatever money you can by increasing fees and over back door taxes.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 20, 2008 12:40 PM

Great coverage Melissa! I think that bob really stepped up to the plate on this one. Good job. But I want to add a little something of small importance that Migdalia Castro had brought up...did anyone know that kids can play free at the golf course?? I did not. Just thought I would share it to those who may want to take advantage of such a great thing.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 20, 2008 1:18 PM

And I am a bit angry that they approved the 5 mill. for the heating thing! I realize they want to see the reports and such but not a time where we can afford another 5 mill. And if we can extend the existing contract and wait for Obama's bills for green energy to come through...which they will! Then maybe federal and state funds will pay a large portion of this project! AND NOT THE OVER BURDEN TAX PAYERS OF THIS CITY!!!!! Why are they in such a hurry is what I want to know. Who KNOWS WHO in this deal...WHO is getting what??? Know I may be wrong but this whole thing STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: iwasthere | November 20, 2008 2:27 PM

Time to build the tolls. They need to construct a toll on every road that leads into New Haven. You need to pay when they leave the city and come back into the city. This would generate alot of money. .25 cents a head not just per car. I know the State wouldn't allow this but it's worth the try. Stop giving yourself at city hall raises. Recind the raises you gave yourselves.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 21, 2008 6:02 AM

"Anyone who walks, jogs or bikes to the beach can always get in for free."

Here's a piece of advice that liberals always tend to forget, or overlook. It's called the law of unintended consequences. If you can get into the park for free by walking in, whats to stop a person from parking their car on the street and walking in? Do you have any idea what the neighborhood will look like in the summer with out of town cars cars parked end to end on every street? How stupid do you think people are to not figure this shortcut out around the charge?

Posted by: robn | November 21, 2008 8:53 AM

FUWL,

Must be something in the water, but I agree with you. The city could consider resident parking stickers for street parking out to some inconvenient radius beyond the park...but it would probably be just easier to charge by the head at the park gates instead of charging for parking. There must be some way of estimating attendance and doing the division. Maybe make it free for kids under 12 and charge everybody else. It should be dramatically lower becasue the burden is shared amongst many more people...and it more equitable becuase the up-keep costs are created by all users, not just drivers.

Posted by: Julia | November 21, 2008 10:00 AM

Fedupwithliberals, I live on the street that you are talking about near Lighthouse Point Park. And there are cars parked the way you describe a total of maybe....twice. Twice in the whole summer. And one of those times is July 4 because of lack of parking. We shouldn't turn down any idea.

Posted by: Josh Smith | November 21, 2008 5:41 PM

Fedup, I actually agree with you for once. I think to alleviate that situation, all people should be required to show their IDs at the gate, and if you're a townie or a Yalie, you get in free. All others can pay up. No charge to park your car, just a flat rate per person. If they want to skirt the law by hiding people in the trunk or whatever, they can do that, but at least it lessens the possibility that people will park in the surrounding neighborhood. The way our government's going, though, we'll probably have "trunk checks" at beaches for bombs and stuff by that point anyway, so they won't be able to get away with that. If all goes well, the out-of-towners will either pay up, or go to a beach where there's no entrance fee so they're not clogging up our roads or trashing our park. Problem solved. :)

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 22, 2008 6:00 AM

ROBN

Have no fear about the water. Much better for you than Kool Aid!

Posted by: Mr. Stephen Peter Ross | November 22, 2008 11:01 AM

I go to Lighthouse often and have done so since I was a child. In the dozens of cars I've travelled in with drivers close, indifferent, or hostile to me, I've never been with someone who didn't actually park in the lot. Many times I've heard parking on the street bandied about (even once or twice at my suggestion, I'll freely admit), but no actually did. Why? Because it's more convenient to use the lots.

And even if a few people do take advantage of the wording of the rule, who cares? It's the god-damned beach!

It's ludicrous that a public park sign can elicit ideological condemnation.

Posted by: Politico | November 23, 2008 9:37 PM

This looks like a job for the politically connected. How many out of town visitors are there at Lighthouse Park in January? Zero I think. How much does the toll booth attendent earn? $30,000? Another failure. Taxes up again in July.

New Haven Independent

City Looks To Beach For Bucks

Comments

Post a comment

Preview:

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed