Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Finance Co. OKs Mayor’s Budget Cuts

by Thomas MacMillan | May 18, 2010 5:52 pm

(73) Comments | Commenting has expired | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall, City Budget

Thomas MacMillan Photo

In a final vote Tuesday night, the Finance Committee approved an amendment by Mayor John DeStefano that cut $6 million from his original $476 million budget proposal for the fiscal year starting July 1.

East Rock Aldermen Justin Elicker and Roland Lemar teamed up to put forward amendments that would have slashed $1.5 million from the Board of Education and cut another $1.1 million from 13 different departments. But Elicker and Lemar couldn’t convince enough of their aldermanic colleagues to join them. Several of their amendments went down in a tied vote.

The committee voted to approve another amendment to the budget, one proposed on Monday by the mayor, and went on to recommend the amended budget to the full Board of Aldermen. The board will vote on it May 27.

The Independent was at City Hall providing live blow-by-blow coverage. Scroll down to read live-blogging on the meeting’s many surprises, including an illuminated budget-cutting hat (6:57 p.m.), and a crucial vote-deciding revelation that Aldermen Greg Morehead is not a member of the Finance Committee (7:53 p.m.). That shocker spelled doom for an amendment proposed by Aldermen Elicker and Lemar.

Tuesday’s budget approval by the Board of Aldermen’s Finance Committee was a milestone in a contentious budget season. It marks the end of weeks of committee meetings to discuss the mayor’s proposed budget.

The committee has heard from representatives of each city department, trying to claim their pieces of the pie (read about that here, here and here). And it’s heard from hundreds of angry taxpayers who showed up last month to blast the projected 8.8 percent tax hike called for in the budget.

Meanwhile, budget watchdog group New Haven Citizens Action Network (NHCAN) has been organizing opposition to the budget, including a 1,000-person petition that it tried to get the mayor to sign. The group has called for a 10 percent budget cut from every department.

Faced with mounting discontent about the tax hike, Mayor John DeStefano announced an amendment to the budget Monday that would cut $6 million in city services and half the tax increase to 4 percent.

When the Finance Committee met on Tuesday night, they first took up the mayor’s proposed amendment and then considered amendments from Lemar and Elicker.

Aldermen approved the mayor’s amendment, after a discussion of the controversial parking meter monetization deal, which would have sold off 25 years of future parking fee revenue for cash upfront.

Thanks to another amendment approved on Tuesday, the meter deal is no longer part of the proposed budget. But in its place is a $5 million dollar “place-holder” that the city will need to find a way to fill over the next several months.

Although a parking meter deal is still an option for filling that hole, aldermen sought to ensure that budget language did not commit the city to any such deal.

After the meeting, Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield said he thinks the monetization deal is dead, which will mean finding $5 million in hard cuts. That’s the reason that he couldn’t support the cuts proposed by Lemar and Elicker, Goldfield said.

Elicker (at left in photo) and Lemar (at right) proposed a budget amendment that would have cut between $60,000 and $120,000 from each of 13 city departments. They argued that the cuts are needed to reduce taxes. Their plan would have lowered the mill rate by 0.21 mill, according to a budget department staffer.

Goldfield argued strongly against the amendment. He said cuts already have to be made as part of a nebulous part of the budget called Innovation Based Budgeting, to find the money to cover not going forward with the monetization deal. The city can’t stand more cuts on top of that, he said.

The Elicker/Lemar amendment went down, in a tie vote. That was also the fate of their proposal to save $50,000 by cutting the state lobbyist position from Economic Development.

Elicker and Lemar might have found the extra vote to support their proposed amendments, but for the surprise revelation that Alderman Morehead is not on the Finance Committee. That was revealed during a vote on another Elicker/Lemar amendment, one that would have cut $1.5 million from the Board of Education (BOE) budget. The amendment would not have changed the bottom line on the BOE budget, since it would have taken the place of a $1.5 million BOE cut that was already in another part of the city budget.

Morehead, who had been sitting at the meeting table all night, and three other aldermen, voted with Elicker and Lemar to support the amendment. Then Goldfield, who was on the other side of the vote, announced that Morehead is not on the committee. Morehead stormed out.

After the meeting, Morehead explained. He said he sent a letter to Goldfield in March asking to be taken off the Finance Committee since its regular Wednesday night meetings conflicted with a prior engagement of his. But he never got a response from Goldfield and he continued to receive all the notices and emails about the Finance Committee. So assumed he was on the committee and continued to come to meetings as his schedule allowed.

Until the voting on Tuesday night.

“I was dumbfounded,” Morehead said. “And really upset.”

Morehead said he didn’t understand why Goldfield didn’t say anything to him when he (Morehead) sat at the table like a normal committee member. “Wouldn’t you say anything?”

Goldfield said after the meeting that he hadn’t needed to reply to Morehead’s resignation. By submitting the letter, Morehead resigned and that was that.

Elicker and Lemar had more success with other, smaller amendments they submitted on Tuesday. They were able to find support for a cut of $12,500 from the Board of Aldermen’s travel budget. They also got three policy amendments passed. Those amendments call for each department to submit a report every six month on car use and vehicle-associated cost-cutting, similar reports on cell phone use, and a call for a curtailing of unnecessary travel spending.

After the meeting, Lemar (pictured below post-gaming the meeting with Aldermen Darnell Goldson and Migdalia Castro) promised to re-submit amendments to the full Board of Aldermen, which will vote on the budget—as amended by the Finance Committee—on May 27. Lemar acknowledged that he has to work on building aldermanic support for more cuts by that date.

Live Blog

Live-blogging commences below. (Note: only text inside quotation marks is directly quoted; the rest is paraphrasing. Observations and comments are generally in brackets.) 

6:04 p.m.: Aldermen are taking their seats.

6:05: Chairman Yusuf Shah calls the meeting to order. He’s reading the agenda. Shah is joined by Aldermen Maureen O’Sullivan-Best, Jorge Perez, Migdalia Castro, Bitsie Clark, Carl Goldfield, Stephanie Bauer, Justin Elicker, Greg Morehead, Roland Lemar, and Andrea-Jackson Brooks. There are ten or fifteen observers here in the aldermanic chamber, including several city staffers and a number of aldermen who are not on the committee.

6:07: Shah promises his phone won’t be confiscated this time (for ringing during the meeting, as it did last week).

6:08: Goldfield makes a motion to table item number one, regarding the property tax stabilization fund. Motion passes. Elicker and Castro vote “nay.”

Goldfield moves item two: general, capital, and special budgets.

Perez moves items on page 11 of the mayor’s amendment, which has to do with the capital budget.

Perez: We’re reducing the requests for capital projects by $17 million.

Elicker has a question about the structure of the meeting. He apologizes and says he’s new.

Shah interrupts: “You’re not new any more. You submitted an amendment that was late.”

Goldfield steps in to explain: We’re moving what was submitted by the mayor, originally. And we’re amending it to reflect the new amendment from the mayor, piece by piece. Right now, we’re just talking about capital budgets.

6:16: Perez: I’m making the amendment, but these ideas don’t come just from me. I’m just moving the ideas that reflect the will of the working groups. [The mayor’s amendment was the result of several aldermanic working groups meeting for days with the administration.]

Elicker says he wants to commend the people who worked on this. It’s appropriate to delay the school projects, he says. [The amendment delays construction on four school projects.]

Lemar expresses support for the $17 million cut to the capital budget. It doesn’t save us much this year, but it will have an impact next year, he says.

6:19: Perez: Each million we cut means $62,000 less we have to pay in the future.

Castro: What about our debt?

Perez: This budget has no deficit. We spend a lot on debt service. This budget cuts spending, which helps the debt service picture

6:22: Goldfield speaks on the school construction delays. He tells the story of a visit long ago to the old Lincoln-Bassett school. “It was just shocking.” The paint looked like it came from a mental institution 40 years ago. Now, it’s a beautiful school. What we’re doing here needs to be done (delaying schools), but there’s a cost: some kids continue to attend shoddy schools. “There will be a cost to this.”

6:24: The capital budget amendment passes unanimously.

6:25: Goldfield moves the amended appropriating ordinance. Perez seconds.

Goldfield: This reflects the cuts we made to departments in our working groups with the administration: $1.5 million from the Board of Ed, delayed police class, delayed fire class, no more mounted unit [What will happen to Marshmallow the police horse?], Tweed subsidy reduced, Shubert’s subsidy reduced too, and more.

Nixing the holiday tree on the Green will save $20,000. Severing TV connections to City Hall will save $672. Goldfield chuckles at that one. There’s also a reduction associated with delaying the parking meter monetization plan, as was proposed alongside the mayor’s amendment yesterday.

6:30: Goldfield says he’s also moving the revenues on the same page. The biggest two are PILOT payments from Ninth Square development project ($580,000), Water Pollution Control Authority rate stabilization ($980,000), and $2 million in the sale of city assets [unnamed].

6:34: Perez seeks to clarify that he is not simply delaying monetization, he plans to vote against it.

Goldfield: There is $5 million we have to find. But there is no commitment in any of this that we will approve the monetization deal. If we do it, it will be for a smaller amount.

6:35: Committee member Aldermen Morehead leaves.

6:36: Goldfield: the original net income of $7 million from monetization has been knocked down to $5 million and the amendment is not a commitment to approve monetization.

Elicker: But there’s a line item that says monetization, that we are looking to approve here, on page 10.

6:38: Shah: Please move a white Ford sedan from in front of City Hall. UI needs to get under it.

6:39: Goldfield to Elicker: Look at the far column. We’re down to zero, for monetization.

Rusconi steps up to explain: The net impact is $5 million. $8 million on revenue and $3 million in costs (to pay to the parking meter company).

Goldfield: So where does it say we’re not committing to monetization?

Aldermanic staff: It’s in another amendment, the Monetization and Financial Stabilization Amendment.

6:41: Elicker: but the budget still assumes that we are spending $3 million and have $8 million coming in.

Goldfield: Right.

Elicker: “I don’t think and I won’t think this [monetization] is a good idea.”

Shah cuts off applause from the gallery.

Lemar and Castro also speak out against the monetization plan. Lemar: We need to acknowledge we are creating a $5 million hole.

6:47: Jackson-Brooks says the monetization plan amendment is not clear enough.

6:50: Lemar brings up another amendment, an amendment to an amendment, in fact.

Perez objects. Lemar says he’ll bring it up later.

6:50: Morehead is back. He has a question about the delay of the police class and reduction in police overtime. With all the crime and violence lately, what if things get worse? In my ward, we haven’t had walking beats. If it does affect our wards can we come back and amend this?

Shah: The chief said there would be a reduction in response times. Yes, there will be an effect on the communities. “It’s going to hurt us…. This is the decision that we made.”

6:55: Perez: Any alderman can propose to amend the budget in the future. But you have to find the money to pay for what you propose.

6:57: [It’s been brought to my attention that there is a man with a light-up Christmas tree hat in the audience. He’s is very studiously taking notes, while a springy green tree with a big yellow star bobs around above his head.]

[Late update: The man is Westville resident Glenn Nelson (pictured). He said he wore the hat to make a statement about the cutting of the holiday tree budget. “I feel that cutting the Christmas tree is not the point,” he said. “It’s a scare tactic.” Cuts are needed in administrative positions, he said. Any tax increase in the current economic climate cannot be justified, he added.]

6:58: Shah, to Morehead: Your point is well taken, my ward has seen violence.

Morehead: I know we have to make cuts. But it’s kind of hard. We already have slow police response times. Now it’s going to get even more slower?

7:00: Elicker: Back to monetization. Is it legal for us to have a $5 million placeholder in the budget?

Perez: Rating agencies have approved such placeholders in the past.

7:01: The appropriating ordinance amendment passes unanimously.

7:02: On to the monetization amendment, moved by Goldfield. [This is the amendment that “delays” or maybe does away with monetization, but creates the $5 million placeholder in the budget.] We’ve proposed to “put off the (w)hole decision” and leave a $5 million placeholder instead. If monetization goes forward, it may be smaller, it may be in two pieces. Or it may not go forward at all. That’s the point of this amendment.

Perez, the “other maker of this amendment” speaks: this allows us to look at all avenues. This is, believe it or not, an attempt to be clear that we are creating a $5 million placeholder.

“It doesn’t say that,” Alderman Darnell Goldson says, quietly, from the audience.

7:07: Elicker says: I appreciate Goldfield and Perez’s efforts. He’s concerned that a lot of time and money have already been spent on this. In the future, maybe the idea should have been presented to the board earlier.

No further discussion. The monetization amendment passes unanimously.

7:08: Lemar presents a new amendment! It calls for an additional cut of $1.5 million from the Board of Ed. Elicker seconds.

Lemar explains: $1.5 million from the BOE budget had been proposed by privatizing custodial services. We don’t want to do that. Let’s find it elsewhere. The amendment recommends finding the money in central office staff. [This kind of cut has been requested repeatedly by NHI commenters and NHCAN members.] The new total general fund contribution to the BOE budget would be $173,019,297, the same as last year.

7:12: Perez: Didn’t we just include a $1.5 million cut in the last amendment. Can we do this?

Shah: We’re already at the threshold for what we can reduce the Board of Ed.

Perez: We already reduced the BOE $3 million.

Budget staffer Becky Bombero steps up: $1.5 million in cuts to the BOE is promised through Innovation Based Budgeting (IBB). That $1.5 million is based on a predicted agreement with custodians. “To take any more from the Board of Ed would tie our hands on IBB.” [This is a real head-scratcher. There are murmurs of irritated confusion from the crowd.]

7:16: Lemar explains: His proposal would flat-fund the Board of Ed.

Goldfield: We would lose flexibility in negotiations with custodians. “I would rather keep our powder dry, I guess.” Goldfield says he will vote against the amendment.

7:18: Lemar: We can do this without affecting negotiations. He says he doesn’t want to be complicit in a yet-to-be-made agreement with custodians [privatization of custodial services, perhaps].

Perez: We’re going to create another $1.5 million hole with this amendment. All you’re doing is making that $5 million [the monetization hole] into $6.5 million.

Lemar: The amendment is to take $1.5 million from the BOE. The cuts shouldn’t be from Talented and Gifted program [as called for by the superintendent of schools]. Lemar acknowledges that the Board of Aldermen does not have line item control over the BOE budget and can only suggest where cuts come from.

Perez: What do we use that $1.5 million towards then?

Lemar: Property tax relief. Our IBB number stays the same. [Bombero shakes her head. There’s some confusion here that aldermen and budget staff are trying to clarify for one another.]

7:24: Castro: Last meeting, people came out and told us to send this back to the mayor. People can’t afford a tax increase. “I feel this is a responsible item presented to us. .... To share their pain, it must be equally among everyone. ... This is, bottom line, what the tax payers were asking.”

Elicker: Perez is right. This does raise a $1.5 million hole. Puts pressure on us to find these cuts in the next year, forces hard decisions.

Perez asks to split the amendment into a recommendation to 1) not cut TAG and 2) cut of $1.5 million from BOE.

7:28: Lemar agrees. The policy part of the amendment says that cuts should come from central office staffing and “administrative ranks” and not from direct school services.

7:28: Discussion on part 2, to cut the BOE by $1.5 million. Jackson-Brooks says she’s confused. At this point the budget is balanced, with a $5 million hole.

Lemar: We have a much larger hole than that. IBB is a hole. Union givebacks are a hole. Monetization is a hole. The hole is bigger than $5 million, we’ve just allocated it out in different ways.

Jackson-Brooks: “What is the total hole?”

Lemar: It includes those three things.

Jackson-Brooks: Why do we want to make it bigger?

Lemar: To not create a bigger burden on taxpayer.

Jackson-Brooks: This creates a bigger hole.

Lemar: We’re making a statement about how much general fund money we want to give to BOE.

Jackson-Brooks: I’m going to have to vote against this.

Perez: At the end of the day the Board of Ed is going to be flat-funded. The question is, how do we use the second half of the $1.5 million?

7:42: [I’m having trouble with my wireless signal. Here’s what’s happened in the last few minutes: Lemar and Elicker’s amendment is proving controversial. Apparently it would reduce the money coming from IBB by $1.5 million. Lemar says all it does is simply spell out how much of the general fund is going to BOE. Elicker (a co-sponsor of the amendment) says it allows the alderman to have more control over the BOE funding, without locking the city into a stance on custodial negotiations in the future. Aldermen aren’t buying it. Goldfield says the amendment would mean the BOE would need to find other hard cuts in the budget, since custodial negotiations wouldn’t be possible. Besides, flat-funded means going backwards, Goldfield says.]

7:47: Lemar: The amendment seeks to flat fund the BOE. Over the last few months, we’ve heard numerous and grandiose plans to close the IBB gap: sale of assets, storm water authority. I want to bring clarity into what the BOE will spend. I want to have clarity as to what we are allocating. Lemar apologizes for boring Shah.

Shah cuts him off: “I’m not bored I’ve just heard this before.”

Elicker: The spirit of this also requests that cuts come from BOE central office staff.

7:53: Voting!: Five against. Six for. The amendment passes.  Voting against: Shah, Goldfield, Bauer, Best, Jackson-Brooks.

Wait a minute! Stop the presses!

Goldfield: Morehead doesn’t have a vote, he resigned!

Shocked murmurs ripple as aldermanic staff review the matter. No one’s quite sure what to make of this.

Morehead: It made a request, but I never got official notice I was off the committee.

Morehead walks out! “This is ridiculous,” he mutters.

So it’s a tie! 5-5. Motion fails.

Castro: Wait, Morehead has been treated as a member so he’s a member.

Shah: “If he resigned, he resigned.”

7:57: Shah: Let’s move on to the second part, the policy amendment.

Jackson-Brooks and Perez have also stepped away from the table.

Elicker: The policy amendment recommends BOE cuts come from central office and administrative staff and the impact to classroom staff be minimized.

Discussion. Elicker: Proposed cuts have been in school operations. The amendment seeks to change that to school administration. “As we all know, we don’t have line item control over the Board of Ed” So we have to make our wishes known.

8:00: Perez and Jackson-Brooks are back. Still no sign of Morehead. Wait, there they go again. And Elicker’s talking with them in the corner. Meanwhile discussion continues. And… everyone’s back.

8:02: Clark: So this is a suggestion for where the BOE should make cuts.

Lemar: Yes.

Perez: A friendly amendment—let’s make it non-classroom in general, not just central office. What about travel expenses, for instance?

Lemar accepts the friendly amendment.

Perez: So the amendment would state that cuts will come from central office and administrative staff and other non-classroom areas? Yes.

8:05: No further discussion. The amendment passes unanimously.

On to Elicker and Lemar’s next proposed amendment: Cuts in a variety of departments. They could result in layoffs, it’s up to departments to make the decision where to cut. Cuts include $60,000 each to Board of Aldermen, Mayor’s office, Corp Counsel, Human Resources, Assessment, Building Inspection, and LCI; and $120,000 each from Finance, Public Safety, Police (non-sworn), Fire (non-sworn), and Public Health.  [This is a big deal. It’s the kind of thing that NHCAN has been calling for, but not to the extent it has called for. I’m not sure what percentage of the respective departments total budgets these cuts represent. NHCAN has called for 10 percent from each budget.]

8:11: Goldfield is first to speak against the amendment: These cuts will come from the same places IBB will be looking for cuts. They will be hard. As the ‘Department Head’ of the Board of Aldermen, Goldfield asks that the cut to the aldermanic budget be taken separately. Also, he defends travel expenses as a way to bring ideas back from conferences.

Lemar: I have traveled and brought back ideas. But when we’re cutting fireworks and holiday trees, we need to look at cutting our own department. This allows the departments to find the cuts themselves.

8:15: Elicker: We need to make these hard decisions now and not later. The cuts would go towards not raising taxes, towards mill rate reduction.

Goldfield: In IBB we have a “hell of a lot more cuts to make.” This is adding to those cuts, including the $5 million monetization hole.

8:15: O’Sullivan-Best: How much would the mill rate go down?

Bombero: 0.21 reduction in mill rate.

Castro: We’re doing this so we can all share the pain. It’s about survival.

8:20: Lemar again expresses reluctance for using IBB as an argument not to make further cuts. He says he’s received a lot of sincere calls from his constituents asking for more cuts.

Elicker: We need to make these decisions as a board ourselves. We should focus on these departments and not on parks and elderly services and public works.

Lemar: We wanted to go further. This represents what we thought we could build consensus around.

8:20: No such luck. The amendment fails due to a split vote. Perez, O’Sullivan-Best, Bauer, Goldfield, and Shah vote against.

8:25: On to the next Lemar/Elicker amendment, which would cut the Board of Aldermen (BOA) travel budget by $12,500. The total travel budget for the city would be $727,923, most of which is in the BOE and can’t be cut by the BOA.

Goldfield again asks that it be brought before the full Board of Aldermen without being voted on by the Finance Committee.

8:30: Motion passes, 6-4. O’Sullivan Best, Shah, Goldfield, and Bauer vote against.

8:31: Next Lemar/Elicker amendment: Cut the state lobbyist from Economic Development, saving $50,000.

Clark: I can’t vote for anything that goes against economic development.

Lemar: It’s true, we need to grow our grand list and develop the city. But although the state lobbyist we contract with has been useful, there are other city staff that also lobby the state. 

8:34: Voting! 5-5, the motion fails.

Next amendment, from Lemar, Elicker, Jackson-Brooks, and Castro. The legislation calls for each department to submit reports on a) vehicle use and b) cell phone use. Also, c) there shall be no travel for anything other than federal or state-mandated travel.

Goldfield: What does C mean?

Elicker: Departments should look at travel and cut extra.

Shah: But it says, NO travel.

Lemar: That could be clarified. The “underlying feeling” is that we need to “contain” travel.

8:39: Perez proposes changing the language to say travel for lobbying will be permitted.

Goldfield: Have you looked at the way the travel money is spent? I have. We have cops that travel for safety and “life-saving” training. That may not be state-mandated, but it sure is important. Maybe “we’re cutting off our noses to spite our faces.”

Clark: I’m not seeing these cuts as permanent. They’re not forever and ever. We have to weigh the essential with cuts.

8:45: Elicker: I’m not concerned with the language being too restrictive. [Aldermen have added to it now to include a variety of travel reasons]. It allows pretty much everything.

Amendment passes unanimously.

8:46: No we’re back to the main item at hand, with amendments having been made (and more having been rejected). We’re back to agenda item #2, the general budget appropriating ordinance.

Castro asks to abstain from anything having to do with the New Haven parking authority [her employer].

Perez sums up: We’ve cut the tax hike from over eight percent to around four percent.

Castro: Amendments could come back when the budget is in front of the full Board of Aldermen.

Perez: That’s right. We are not voting on the budget now. We’re simply making a recommendation to the full Board of Aldermen.

Elicker: We proposed a number of amendments that didn’t pass. I’d like to proceed without a recommendation to the board.

Shah: You would vote no.

Perez: You could make a motion that we send the budget to the full board with no recommendation.

8:53: Elicker: I’d like to move this without a recommendation.

Shah: There’s already a motion on the floor.

Goldfield: You could amend the motion to take it from “favorable” to “no recommendation.”

Perez: I withdraw my motion to move it favorably.

Goldfield: But it’s already been amended.

Elicker moves that the budget goes forward with no recommendation.

Lemar: I normally disdain spending hours and hours and then vote that it go forward with no recommendation, but it’s appropriate now.

Goldfield: I think we should move it forward with approval. We have an obligation to take action. “We should send this forward.”

Jackson-Brooks: I support the president [Goldfield] in this.

Castro: For all the hours this was given, it shocked me that the amendments package didn’t come to me until today. I’m supporting that we go with no recommendation.

Perez: I prefer what we have amended much better than what we first got. It has cuts, and a lower tax rate. Let’s vote to recommend it, it doesn’t mean that we can’t go further. You still need 16 votes [at the full board, to get a majority].

9:01: Elicker: Let’s be clear, a vote to recommend says we like this budget as it is. I looked at the new mayor’s amendment all day today and I still don’t understand it, particularly the IBB part.

9:04: Voting! Castro, Elicker, Lemar vote yes on the motion to pass the budget to the full board with no recommendation. The remaining seven members vote no. Motion fails.

9:05: New motion: to move it forward with approval, as amended.

Lemar: I’m going to vote yes, even though I voted to pass with no recommendation. I am going to re-introduce the amendments I brought up here when we get to the full board meeting.

Goldfield: “This has been one of the more collaborative processes in my experience.” There are genuine disagreements over how the city should proceed.

Jackson-Brooks: Can we get amendments in sooner? The full board will have very little time to look at all this.

Shah: We can try to improve the process. [Some discussion of this ensues, including talk of the internet challenges faced by some aldermen.]

9:12: Elicker says he wants to underscore Goldfield’s comment that none of this is personal. Also, I do agree that the mayor’s office has done a good job in making progress. “The mayor’s view and my view of the endpoint are different.” Finally, what does a no vote mean? That one recommends denial by the full board?

Goldfield: It’s a complicated question. “No can mean a bunch of different stuff.”

9:16: Voting. It’s approved unanimously except for a lonely “nay” from Elicker.

On to item #3 on the agenda: Tax and levy appropriating ordinance. That’s how all the stuff on the budget gets paid for.

9:18: Voting. Passes unanimously [except for Elicker? I’m not sure if I heard a nay or not.]

9:19: More voting, on item #4. Unanimously passed, save for Elicker. Oh, wait, he’s changed his vote to “aye.”

9:20: Uh-oh, the committee is getting confused about what it’s voting on.

“I can’t believe these guys are running my ... city,” says a budget watchdog quietly as he packs up and leaves.

9:24: Rusconi steps in to try to help sort it out. Still discussing.

9:27: Progress. They just voted to approve something. Unclear what it was.

9:29: More voting. The rest of the agenda passes. In sum, the mayor’s amendment passes and most of the Lemar/Elicker amendments fail.

9:30: Meeting adjourned.

 

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  6:52pm

Parking mortgage is dead and a $5 million hole in the budget is now created. It will have to be filled in the next several months.

Meanwhile, a concerned citizen concerned over Grinch DeStefano’s cutting of our Christmas Tree has shown up with a Christmas Tree Hat complete with lights…this is rich. The best budget year ever….

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  6:57pm

Alder Moorehead says he’s concerned about loss of police presence due to the microscopic cuts in the police department. He is giving in to fear or he’s politically posturing…either way, he’s under-informed. Sad given the gravity of the budget this year. This is actually a cut in the increase, not a core decrease in funding. Further, the city currently employs 35% more cops than the national average. This should not in reality affect police services at all.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  7:00pm

Moorhead: We have slow response times in the wards? On what kinds of calls? Given our staffing in one of the 3 largest budgets in the city, this should be addressed by management, and soon.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  7:08pm

Westville resident Glenn Nelson is the citizen with the Christmas Tree, complete with lights on his head. A silent protest as he takes notes. Creative protesting…silent and deadly with a smile. The tree, according the mayor, costs $20K and he cut it from the budget yesterday, a cut many think is somewhat cynical. It got cut with the fireworks and cable TV ($672).

posted by: Privatization Equals Corruption on May 18, 2010  7:52pm

Privatization Equals Corruption

Do not under any circumstances allow the BOE to privatize the custodians!!!!

You think money is be wasted and disappearing now.

Remember there is no transparency with a private company.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:01pm

This whole discussion about the BOE budget is a sham - Lemar and Elicker want to lock the BOE into a $3 million cut. The city is fudging the budget by trying to bury the BOE cuts in the undefined IBB budget. It is being aided and abetted by Jackson-Brooks and Goldfield who seem incapable of understanding this is a hard cut as opposed to a flexible number. Lemar/Elicker are trying to lock down the spending to the BOE. That’s their amendment.

That these opposing alders can’t wrap their head around this decision is nothing short of stunning. There must be another agenda here.

Finally passes…thank goodness. Perez, Castro, Clark, Elicker, Lemar and Moorehead.

But wait…in the Banana Republic of City Hall, All of a sudden..Goldfield “remembers” that Moorehead requested that he resign from the committee. Goldfield says he never bothered to appoint a replacement, didn’t notify the other members of the committee and didn’t respond to Moorhead’s letter. Moorhead has been voting in the previous amendments.

Perhaps Goldfield could spend less time carrying the mayor’s water and more time to his duties as the President of the Board. His sudden rememberance is like a patient awaking from a coma…stunning…Amendment now fails because the vote was a tie. and the BOE really only has a $1.5 million cut.

And the mayor’s press conference yesterday, a fraud.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:06pm

Amendment by Elicker/Lemar are making a strong presentation and recommendation that the BOE make their cuts in any area but the classroom…the mayor and the BOE have said they want to cut TAG - talented and gifted among other things…strong statement of police recommendation Passes…good.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:10pm

Another strong amendment - not what I wanted but Lemar and Elicker are coming on strong…wants to cut individual departments a total amount of $1,080,000 total. Did not include parks, public works ... headed in the right direction.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:12pm

Carl Goldfield is the king of I can’t. I wonder if he tells his children to use “I can’t” -

Stunning, after all this time, months of budget, Goldfield says he still hasn’t talked to any department head about making departmental cuts.

posted by: Doug hausladen on May 18, 2010  8:15pm

Tom! Can you grab a picture of the Green Tree hat?

[Ed.: See live-blog entry at 6:57 p.m.]

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:16pm

Lemar/Elicker want each department to find cuts and if necessary to lay off people. Goldfield wants to water it down and bury it in the full board where the chance of it passing is slimmer. Elicker argues the Finance Committee is the best place for the recommendation of cuts because they have had the benefit of all the hours of testimony when the balance of the baord has not.

posted by: Ddoyens on May 18, 2010  8:19pm

Goldfield says we have made a hell of a lot of cuts - excuse Mr. President - the total of what you’re talking about in cuts is 2% - pretty short I think.

posted by: Aldermanic Class on May 18, 2010  8:21pm

I would like to be the first to thank Perez, Castro, Elicker, and Lemar for taking a stand against “monetization” in a once-and-for-all fashion.  On behalf of those of us who hope to be in New Haven for 25 years, Thank You.  They deserve the support of their constituents for not having caved in to pressure to “fund now, pay heavily later.”  Bravo.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:24pm

There is a refreshing new found effort by certain members of the Finance Committee to define city policy in terms of budget and to provide less flexibility to city administration.

Finance employee Becky Bombero is a budget analyst and repeatedly rolls her eyes opposes various amendments. She’s not happy.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:26pm

Jorge Perez is a turncoat - talks a good game about cutting the budget and fiscal responsibility and then votes not to make specific cuts.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:30pm

Goldfield is fighting tooth and nail not to allow any budget amendment from the Finance Committee that further reduces the city budget. Ironically, this committee is the one that heard all the testimony from the public and from the department heads. It is charged with making budget recommendations to the full board.

Goldfield is intent on killing all these amendments and in doing so, is abdicating the responsibility of this committee.

Stunning…what’s the point of having a finance committee?

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:39pm

Current effort is to try and curtail anything state or federal mandated travel. Past due..Goldfield concerned about the mayor’s lobbying travel. This is an overrated expense and of questionable value…

posted by: Pedro on May 18, 2010  8:43pm

Any word on Greg Morehead, and why in the world he resigned from this committee? His was apparently a swing vote now resulting in all of these ties! Is the committee allowed to function with 10 people instead of 11?
Just askin!

posted by: no sh*t on May 18, 2010  8:43pm

Doyens,

Re: Perez

I’m glad you’re seeing that it’s not just about being against the Mayor, it’s about being for something (in this case, tough budget decisions).  Perez is good at the former, not so good at the latter.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:44pm

Carl Goldfield strikes again - he doesn’t even want to cut travel. Good god almighty…

Bitsie Clark makes a strong statement - we have to look at these cuts as things that need to happen now to get through this crisis…we can restore it later in different times. But what we have to look at is what’s absolutely essential…strong statement.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:49pm

Surprised there are so few amendements to the budget. Nearly all of them came from Elicker/Lemar…after all these months.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  8:54pm

The Finance Committee is getting ready to vote on the budget - whether to recommend or not recommend. Here’s what their vote really means:

Last night, in response to widespread community opposition to his original budget, the Mayor floated an amended proposal which would require a more modest tax increase.  Tonight, the BOA Finance Committee will cast a vote that will bring some the 2010–2011 budget one step closer to reality in one form or another.  Sitting there in the glare of public scrutiny, each member will have to make one of five choices:
1:  Forward the amended proposal to the full Board with a FAVORABLE recommendation.


2:  Forward the amended proposal to the full Board with NO recommendation.


3:  Forward the amended proposal to the full Board with an UNFAVORABLE recommendation.


4:  TABLE THE AMENDED PROPOSAL, keeping it in Committee for further deliberation.


5.  Make serious additional amendments tonight to cut this budget and forward to the full Board a budget that the citizens, the Board, and the Mayor can be proud of.
WHAT WE THINK THE VOTES WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THE MEMBERS’ THINKING.

1:  Those who vote a FAVORABLE recommendation will have thought either (a) “I am an avowed Mayoral Loyalist and the Mayor’s position and mine are always the same,” or (b) “I tried to be Independent of the Mayor, but there was so much political pressure that I have to cave in despite the historic public outcry at the Finance Committee hearing, the pleas from my own constituents, and that 1100-signature petition calling for a 10% reduction.”


2:  Those who vote NO recommendation will have thought “I don’t believe the budget cuts go far enough, but we Alders don’t have any more ideas or that we’re not bold enough to make them.”


3:  Those who vote an UNFAVORABLE recommendation will have thought “Enough is enough.  I have to take a stand.  I cannot endorse a budget that does not meet the needs of the community, that does not address the top-heavy administration in City Hall and the BOE, and that encourages fiscal waste and inefficiency.”


4:  Those who vote to TABLE the proposal will have thought “Neither the original nor the amended proposal deserves my endorsement, since both of them represent a fundamentally misguided view of what’s best for New Haven.  These are the Mayor’s initiatives.  Let the Mayor stand alone before the voters to be held accountable for whatever increase or decrease of taxes, services, and debt it requires.” 


5. Those who take the most daring step — who vote to make the deep, painful cuts necessary in these not normal times — will have thought “Enough is enough.  I have to step up and shoulder my responsibilities.  I was elected to represent and protect the constituents who elected me and the City I love.” Be a Budget Hero.

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  9:01pm

Elicker and Lemar move to forward the budget without a recommendation.

Ironically and in a hypocritical and cynical move, Jackson Brooks, Goldfield, Perez and others are voting to move the budget to the full BOA with a favorable ruling. They argue the full BOA has charged them with making a decision. Yet, they argued against amendments to take a stand on specific cuts. This is called trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Shameful…weak. And Perez even thought about higher office? Please…

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  9:07pm

Final Budget Recommendation:

Losers: Taxpayers

Strong Alders: Elicker, Lemar, Castro, Clark

Sellouts and rubberstampers: Jackson-Brookes; Sullivan-Best; Perez, Shah, especially Goldfield; Stephanie Bauer who asked not one question and said not one word - completely mute.

posted by: terrapin on May 18, 2010  9:16pm

Hey! If they cut the cop budget, does that mean Officer Drunken Anger Issues will not be returning in January?

posted by: Doyens on May 18, 2010  9:25pm

Once again, and yet another year, the Finance Committee ignored the will of the people. Next up, is the full BOA. We’ll see if the expanded group will support an affordable, sustainable city or whether they will continue to take us down the road of financial irresponsibility.

posted by: Morris Cove Islander on May 18, 2010  9:46pm

This could be actually funny. Here we have Elicker and Lemar fighting very hard for cuts. On the other side sits Goldfield pretending to do the same by using IBB (Innovation Based Budgeting?). Thus Goldfield opposes the proposed cuts since they will be cut somewhere else. Isn’t a cut a cut? 

Goldfield either you are FOR cuts or you are AGAINST them. After reading that he chuckled about the cable TV savings I know that he does not understand the signs of the time. The City of New Haven needs to save money and be frugal. That means: cuts ACROSS the board and on ALL items.

Cable TV (does the BOE still pay cable fees?), bottled water, travel expenses (CT state employs were not allowed to travel last year), cell phone use, 5 indoor pools (open a total of 7 hours a week for the paying public) - the political signal Goldfield and you other DeStefano cheerleaders are sending is - that you DO NOT KNOW what frugality and saving means. In hard times every penny counts. That is what we want to see. Nickels add up.
You just pretend that you try to set up a tight budget and we voters are supposed to clap and be impressed by your hard cuts. Just weeks ago the mayor told us there would be no room for any cuts - now I have to read about cable TV.

Shame on you - you aldermen who voted for the last budgets with all the waste in it!!! Thanks for increasing our debts with pissing money away - take this literally - after several departments drank bottled water for $ 30,000 annually. You aldermen considered that “chump change”. Well, this year it would be our Christmas tree ...

That much about “chump change”, the will to make cuts and save money and the dire reality in New Haven. Wake up!

posted by: cedarhillresident on May 18, 2010  10:35pm

Perez, Castro, Clark, Elicker, Lemar Brooks Thank you top alderpeople tonight! Stephine you represent Fair haven?? Man I thought you represented what ever you where told to dam…I can’t wait till I show them your LACK OF ANY participation in this tonight!! YOU MY DEAR HAVE NO RIGHT being an alder in Fair haven…who is your puppet master….MAUREEN WOW you asked one question tonight blew me away to here what your voice sounded like!! NOT a good rep for her community. Aldermen amdement PROTECTED Seniors and disability dept…SHAME ON YOU!! same old same old from the rest of them! But these two new comers named above real need to look at amendments at next weeks BOA FINAL VOTE! AND VOTE for the people of there wards not what goldfeid tells them to do!

BUT HERE IS THE GOOD part of the comment…ELICKER AND LEMAR where OUTSTANDING tonight….Not close to what we wanted…but what they did try to do was just as or even more important…they where trying to get amendments to to change how things are ran and tryed to spread the cuts across the lines! They tried there HARDEST to get cuts at the TOP of the BOE!!! MY HATS OFF TO BOTH OF YOU and Justin!! I think you are one amazing freshman in this chamber…I can’t even dream of what the future will be…but I am proud to know you and have supported you in your election!! FIGHTING FOR THE PEOPLE!!
Castro, man I almost started crying when you started talking about the people my god you touched me. You are a women that knows and I will say LOVES the people of fair haven!
And Bitsy I was impressed again with your making sure everything was clearly stated!! Good job!

posted by: Tim Holahan on May 18, 2010  11:35pm

Thanks again to the Independent for the great coverage.

Congratulations to Roland Lemar and Justin Elicker for doing their homework and bringing some real ideas for savings to the Finance Committee. This is the first time I’ve seen that happen during the budget process in several years of watching it.

I think the most relevant comment of the night was Justin’s, to the effect that “this should have been presented to the Board earlier”.

This whole conversation should have been brought to the Board and to the city earlier. (Truly, there should have been a citywide conversation in the early 90’s about what our finances would look like after we added more than $300MM to our debt to build the fanciest school facades in Connecticut, but that’s spilt milk.)

The bottom line is that we can’t remain on the path we’ve been on, and changing direction is going to hurt. I understand that politicians don’t like to break bad news to their constituents, but sometimes it has to be done.

It’s encouraging to see that some of our aldermen are beginning to address the reality of our finances, and have stopped pretending everything’s OK. The truth is, it’s going to be quite a while before New Haven’s financial picture is brighter. $600M in debt and more than a billion in contractual obligations are not going away any time soon.

posted by: roomforaview on May 18, 2010  11:39pm

I too am curious about Morehead’s “resignation”.  What’s this about? It obviously played a key role in the voting. Goldfield seemed eager to announce it. But Morehead said he never received notice. It sounds like something Goldfield was keeping in his pocket just in case he needed to nullify Morehead’s vote.

posted by: Who Ville on May 19, 2010  5:22am

That stunt Goldfield pulled, effectively canceling Morehead’s critical vote, only when it suited him, seems to be politricks at its worst yet Goldfield had the temerity to say that “This has been one of the more collaborative processes in my experience.”

Thank you to Strong Alders: Elicker, Lemar, Castro, Clark. Please keep it up—hopefully some other alders, and maybe even some sellouts and rubberstampers, will see the light.

Thank you to the NHI and Gary Doyens for the great real-time information and to Glenn Nelson for his unique silent protest to Johnny D’s silly grinch stolen tree—dear BOA, may your hearts grow three sizes and support the Elicker-Lemar budget amendments.

posted by: cedarhillresident on May 19, 2010  6:21am

roomforaview
I am with you on that. Something not right about that. I we could of seen the letter! And untill it is excepted the vote should count!

posted by: working(too hard) mom on May 19, 2010  8:01am

Disappointing, but not unexpected.

All citizens need to keep the pressure on thier Aldermen.  Lets find out who else will be courageous enough to fight this.  If anything else, they need to remember that there will be repurcussions come election time. Most of these alders never feel any political motivation to listen to thier constituents.  LET’S GIVE THEM SOME. Call/email them today and tell them to cut more, amend more.

posted by: Question on May 19, 2010  8:15am

I wonder if Morehead had voted in line with Goldfield and the other cronies, would Goldfield had said anything about Morehead’s resignation? Kudos to Morehead for trying to make a stand for his residents.

posted by: HewNaven?? on May 19, 2010  9:50am

roomforaview,

Morehead’s resignation only became relevant to Goldfield when his vote became the tie-breaker in the Elicker/Lemar Amendment. Notice that Goldfield didn’t speak up when Morehead voted for the prior Amendments which were decided unanimously. Once Morehead’s vote mattered then it became an issue.

Now maybe this was just the BOA President being “Cold-field” by not acknowledging Morehead’s resignation letter:

“Goldfield said after the meeting that he hadn’t needed to reply to Morehead’s resignation. By submitting the letter, Morehead resigned and that was that.”

...or maybe Goldfield was just waiting to see which way Morehead would vote and, if not with him/DeStefano, then he would conveniently “remember” that he had received that resignation letter weeks earlier.

“Morehead said he didn’t understand why Goldfield didn’t say anything to him when he (Morehead) sat at the table like a normal committee member. “Wouldn’t you say anything?””

Was this an innocent mistake? If so, what business does Goldfield have being the President of the BOA, when he has just demonstrated that he cannot manage very basic administrative affairs. Maybe, next time send a confirmation letter.

posted by: streever on May 19, 2010  10:11am

nice try by Morehead, and incredible work Lemar, Elicker, Clark, Castro! I am very impressed and grateful to those who worked so hard. You are the definitions of excellence in city government.

posted by: DB on May 19, 2010  11:34am

I live in Fair Haven and my alderwoman, Stephanie Bauer, is on the Budget committee.  I have not seen her in the neighborhood once since she was out on election day. 

She does not show up to any of our neighborhood meetings. 

We have a huge problem with dirt bikes marauding our streets. 

We have a proposed tax increase that will directly effect home owners in her district.  We are already paying a disproportionate tax rate due to the fact that our house valuations took place at the height of the housing boom and we are still paying to those values even though our homes have lost value, much to our detriment.

I want to know… WHAT IS STEPHANIE BAUER DOING FOR US? 

WHERE IS SHE? 

Why do I not see her saying a word at any of the budget meetings?  Her name does not show up once in this article as having spoken.

It certainly feels as if my representation in this city is quite absent and even working against me.

Show up Stephanie!  Speak up Stephanie! 

Represent!

posted by: Boristt on May 19, 2010  11:56am

1.5 million from the custodians, thats going to solve it all!!! Do you know what extortion is, well let me explain it,you give me 1.5 million if not we will privatize your jobs.Thats what you get for 50yrs of working in the city.OLD FASHION SHAKEDOWN

posted by: Wag on May 19, 2010  12:20pm

K-THUNK…that’s the sound of the rubber stamp.

posted by: streever on May 19, 2010  12:48pm

Bauer, what a disappointment. You replaced a truly excellent alderwoman, joined the powerful finance committee, and then proceeded to do… nothing.

I defended you as a good choice because Erin endorsed you. I respect and admire Erin & her work.

Stephanie, you have really let a lot of us down. If you didn’t want to do the work, you should have never run in the first place. Let someone else go for it next time. You acted like a yes vote last night.

Elicker & Lemar devoted copious hours of hard-work and dedication to this effort, and you simply walked in and said “yes” to whatever came over the table. Other aldermen thought things through & acted responsively and responsibly. You simply said, “Yes”

posted by: m.thompson on May 19, 2010  12:52pm

this deciding vote is no surprise to me…what is alarming is that this morehead guy; went months without following up on his role on this important committee;as president Goldfield knew but, morehead is at fault!  I think this the whole thing was orchestrated to make morehead finally look responsible; unfortunately, he looks ... very unprepared; of course he stands with justin and roland; they had a plan; who wouldn’t want to appear to be on the winning team!  Saying yes when you knew you resigned several months ago is just ignorant. Nice try morehead but, no cigar.

posted by: streever on May 19, 2010  1:05pm

Wow, having read the summary over lunch, I am blown away. I’ll give my quick analysis below if anyone cares to read.

Shah used his position to criticize Elicker—Yes Alderman, Elicker is still new. You can definitely give him a hard time for saying he’s new though: his experience & expertise clearly surpassed yours last night. Strong suggestion after suggestion, excellent points made all night. You told a joke about your cell phone. When I look at the work that you each did last night, I’d assume you were the one new to your position, not Elicker.

Perez:
“I’m glad you’re seeing that it’s not just about being against the Mayor, it’s about being for something (in this case, tough budget decisions).  Perez is good at the former, not so good at the latter.” I <3 this comment. So true. Totally hit the nail on the head, and the thing that has always bothered me about Perez and his “Camp” of Brison/etc. Perez however is a more savvy operator. I was really hoping he would take this incredible opportunity to challenge the status quo and do good work. I’m disappointed that in the end he amounts to another “I oppose the mayor but have no ideas” opponent. To think that Brison is now studiously working against Lemar for State Rep. He must realize that the BOA needs a smart, hard-working, nuanced person like Lemar. (Or he’s still just mindlessly opposing anyone who he thinks is “pro” mayor)

Bauer, Best:
Wow. To think that I thought you two might not be rubber stamp votes. How wrong I was. How happy I am that I did not work for either of your campaigns.

Castro:
Good work! I had a high opinion of you which was justified last night. Thank you for what you did.

Clark:
I’m impressed! I didn’t know where you stood or how you’d come out. I’m grateful for your work. I noticed you had serious questions about the monetization, at which point I decided you had some good ideas. Well done.

Elicker/Lemar:
What can I say. I continue to be impressed and grateful to these two incredibly hard-working & dedicated aldermen. My neighborhood is incredibly well supported by the two best aldermen in the City. I’m so happy to have worked on Elicker’s campaign for 10 and am incredibly excited about Lemar for State Rep. Two independent, strong-minded, intelligent & caring people who REALLY listen to their constituents, who can be seen almost every day interacting with their neighbors, who really know what matters to their voters & take that into mind year round. You both made some hard choices & took on some difficult positions, and I am incredibly grateful to you for that. I wish I could have been there to see it!

posted by: Alan Felder on May 19, 2010  1:13pm

This really goes to the heart of the constitutional architecture that the framers have devised between the Government and its Citizens.

The Declaration of Independence:

..........We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

That to secure these rights, Government are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is time to replace this feudalistic plantation system and to stop these political pimps from prostituting the people.

posted by: SJB on May 19, 2010  1:14pm

Agree about Stephanie Bauer. What a disappointment she has been. I also have great respect and admiration for Erin, but at the same time I don’t trust “hand picked successors” especially in a political machine like New Haven. This is why. Next time let the seat go to someone who actually earns it.

posted by: Sam the man on May 19, 2010  2:10pm

Your right Boristt!!! From what i understand the city has a management company that they are paying 1.5 million to over see the maintenance department!! Why? When they have city employed supervisors from local 3144 to do the job! What does this company do? They are not in the schools cleaning so why are they here? Before Aramark i hear that one guy and a few secretaries ran the maintenance department.Is this company really needed?

posted by: blue dog dem on May 19, 2010  3:07pm

When Ina supported Dildine’s candidacy, I stated that he was just going to be part of the machine.  Told him so too.  I was told by my friends on the ward committee that I was wrong.  Doesn’t seem to be the case now, does it?  He no longer seems interested in a fair budget as before he was elected. 

Three years ago could have had someone not in the mayor’s pocket but too many people couldn’t vote for Malone because he was a republican.  To all of those too narrow to see outside the box, you deserve the pain.  To those of us who support change, keep doing it.  Until dems vote for the other party, no matter what that party is, green, repub or independent, none of this will change and it will only get worse.

posted by: Cedarhillresident on May 19, 2010  3:54pm

blue dog dem

I am confused? Dildine was not part of the deliberations, but he is next week at the BOA last night…I am not sure what his stand is on things but I do know he is at most of the BOF meetings with notes ect and does not have to be. So I am waiting to see what he does before I pass judgment. So far he seems to be extremely concerned and involved more than a few on the BOF. So take that as you want but I am just trying to figure out why you commented that way? Maybe you where confusing him with the other greg that is on the BOF

posted by: Margaret on May 19, 2010  4:15pm

The live blogger typing “stop the presses!”  Now THAT should win an award.

posted by: Respect for ... ? on May 19, 2010  6:04pm

Shah is there making sure that the old guard is respected. 

The public is NOT to react supportively to good decisions by “rebel” aldermen ... or he threatens to throw them out of the room. 

Elicker and Lemar and Castro are NOT to do a fine job for constituents, or he’ll turn on them.

Stop standing up for your interests and your ethics, is that what he wants?  Because that was what it sounded like in the room.

posted by: anon on May 19, 2010  6:21pm

The new “Office of Sustainability” is a major added expense this year but it was supposed to save the city money, right?  How much has been saved so far?

posted by: Greg Dildine on May 19, 2010  7:31pm

blue dog dem.  I’ve forgotten who you are.  most folks are using their real names.  contact me directly please if you have questions or more comments.  comments are taken much more seriously if you post using your name.

posted by: Ken Joyner on May 19, 2010  8:44pm

“I can’t believe these guys are running my ... city,” says a budget watchdog quietly as he packs up and leaves.

That be me!!

Had you attended this committee deliberation you would be in disbelief and bewilderment as I am.

This mass confusion is contained and explained in the body of the story above.

Example:

6:25: Goldfield moves the amended appropriating ordinance. Perez seconds.

6:34: Perez seeks to clarify that he is not simply delaying monetization; he plans to vote against it.

Lemar and Castro also speak out against the monetization plan. Lemar: We need to acknowledge we are creating a $5 million hole.

6:47: Jackson-Brooks says the monetization plan amendment is not clear enough.

6:39: Goldfield to Elicker: Look at the far column. We’re down to zero, for monetization.

Rusconi steps up to explain: The net impact is $5 million. $8 million on revenue and $3 million in costs (to pay to the parking meter company).

Goldfield: So where does it say we’re not committing to monetization?

Aldermanic staff: It’s in another amendment, the Monetization and Financial Stabilization Amendment.

6:41: Elicker: but the budget still assumes that we are spending $3 million and have $8 million coming in.

Goldfield: Right.

Elicker: “I don’t think and I won’t think this [monetization] is a good idea.”


7:00: Elicker: Back to monetization. Is it legal for us to have a $5 million placeholder in the budget?

Perez: Rating agencies have approved such placeholders in the past.

7:07: No further discussion. The monetization amendment passes unanimously.

After the meeting, Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield said he thinks the monetization deal is dead.

I think you get the point..Read more above and you will see why even the most patient taxpayer would vanish..in disgust.

But there was much more than I care to write here. But let me try this on you.
The Alders rightly complained that they had, just in the past days, received the data at their home or in their city hall mail box and had not had the time to review the material.
Well, meeting over right there.
The alders were considering a $4,666.640 amendment reduction, which they thought, from news accounts, was $6M.
Only the leadership had the opportunity to review and hash out the details before hand.
The alders did not consider the fact that they are currently in an $8M hole in the 9/10 budget. No responsible legislator would consider a budget reduction proposal without first knowing how the administration plans to retire the current budget deficit. Unless, they assume past practices will prevail by simply zeroing out the deficit on paper and tossing the deficit dollars in the debt pile..(770MM) and growing.
But what discusses me most is the fact that neither the administration nor the finance committee tax cutters ever even considered basing cuts on any objective, statistical, performance metrics, need, or budget base analysis.
This was just Ole fashion political “slash and burn” to reach a preconceived acceptance for taxpayers to swallow.
Finally, there was the situation involving Alderman Greg Morehead who raised a valid concern to his constituents, involving the supposed reduction to police services.

In fact, the delay of the 32 new recruits is not an amendment initiative, delaying the recruit class was an original budget submission, whose monies were accounted for in March 2010 budget debriefing to this same committee, a meeting in which morehead did not attend.
Nevertheless, this amendment offered a reduction of $700,000, which is matched by a federal grant of over 4,600,000 and scheduled to kick in about the time as the original proposed period of delay.
Two months ago Morehead sent a letter of resignation to Goldfield, Goldfield never officially accepted the letter of resignation, nor did he file the letter in the clerk’s office in order to make it official.
Morehead never inquired about his status, but did show up for this meeting, he was allow to vote on the first measure, but when his vote would have been the deciding vote on a vote cutting measure, Goldfield pulled the resignation out of his pocket and waved it at morehead,,, causing him to walk out in disgust and resulting in a losing tie vote on the vote cutting measure.
And there was more….
However,
Witnessing your representatives in action as described above would cause many you to walk out in disgust too!!

posted by: Glenn Nelson on May 19, 2010  9:10pm

Never mind cutting such happy and meaningful things as the Christmas Tree and Fireworks:  we need a serious approach, not a narrow and vindictive one.

There would be no layoffs and no tax hike if everyone stepped up to the plate and took a voluntary pay cut until the economy is more stable.  After all our leaders should be the first to recognize that the taxpayers of New Haven pay their salaries are they are suffering.

This is not a citywide problem, not a statewide problem, not a national problem, but a GLOBAL PROBLEM; which makes it all the more serious. Many residents have lost some of their incomes, many have lost their jobs—to strap them with still further tax burdens is not the answer.

If their were a mandatory pay cut of 10% in citywide salaries and benefits, that would lead to over $60,000,000 in savings—we could lower taxes, keep our homeowners from foreclosure, keep money flowing in New Haven—and the beautiful thing about this is that no one in the city would need be laid off.

I think a job with 85% of ones salary as opposed to no job is a no brainer.  So lets light the Christmas Tree and have the Fireworks, The tree is only $20,000, a 10% pay and benefit cut is 60 million.  Let us work responsibly are a family in New Haven, not as everyman for himself.

Mayor DeStefano do the noble thing—make the right decisions—share the burden, don’t add to it!

posted by: blue dog dem on May 20, 2010  1:25am

CHR,

I’m sorry if my post implied that he was part of the process, but unlike Goldson who is making a stand, I don’t believe my alderman is doing the same though like Goldson he’s not on the committee.

GD,

I have been using this moniker longer than I believe you’ve lived in New Haven.  Many of my neighbors in Westville know who I am, as well as Paul, and I am not going to change just for you.  When we meet in person I’ll make sure that I introduce myself as BDD and reiterate what I’ve posted.  But until you “represent” your constituents as opposed to explaining away why we need tax increases, I’ll keeo believing your shilling for JDS.  Telling us it’s more complicated than what it appears is BS because I work with unions and municipalities that have much larger budgets than New Haven, but don’t piss away the money like this administration does.

posted by: Michael Hayes on May 20, 2010  2:10am

Why doesn’t New Haven charge a non-resident worker tax to all those who work in New Haven but don’t live here.  New Haven has a large population of commuting workers who come here by day, strain our resources, profit from the jobs New Haven’s economy provides them, and then go back to their suburbian towns where they pay half of what we do for taxes.  This is a tax we could make the employers take directly out of the workers’ paycheck.  If their mailing address is outside new Haven then they pay a small percentage (0.5-1%) Pre-tax to the city.  This will increase incentive for those commuters to live here and it will force them to help the city that provides their employment. I’m lawyer or legal expert so I don’t know if this idea is feasible on the city level but I think it’s worth looking into.

posted by: Uncle Egg on May 20, 2010  9:25am

What pisses me off isn’t so much canceling the Christmas tree—local churches can (and probably should) raise the money for a tree on the Green this year. It’s the sheer transparency of the threat—reminds me of BOE superintendents threatening to cancel football of they don’t get their budget.

If you want to cut the Christmas tree and Fourth of July fireworks, that’s fine, Mayor DeStefano. But until you’ve trimmed half the assistant principals (and not a single teacher) from the Board of Ed budget, I don’t want to hear about it.

posted by: Morris Cove Islander on May 20, 2010  9:45am

To anon -

Office of Sustainability - I thought they are there to make sure that we all behave green and help keeping our environment healthy and sustainable for the next generations.

Anyway - their existence does not help the city itself to be financially sustainable. Cut the whole office. That is one for good times. And New Haven faces bad ones - and these for quite a long period. Or what will happen with next year’s budget? Thereafter ...

posted by: Dildine Supporter on May 20, 2010  11:30am

BDD:

Your criticism of Dildine is unfair.  He is not even on the finance committee.  Judge him based on what he does when he actually has a vote.  He’s been working tirelessly to serve his constituents and to find solutions in a messy budget year in a severely dysfunctional city. Even the NHCAN people would agree that he is trying to be part of the solution.  Give him a break!

posted by: Tim Holahan on May 20, 2010  12:43pm

Michael:

A targeted commuter tax seems like an idea worth exploring, but it would have to be imposed at the state level. The only taxation power Connecticut grants its municipalities is the property tax we know and love.

I don’t think we’re devoting much energy and creativity to addressing our very real state-level problems. The property tax system is grossly unfair to cities like New Haven that provide services to the communities around them.

Did you know that we used to be able to bill the surrounding towns when one of their citizens spent the night in a homeless shelter here? I’m told that ended with Federal welfare reform for some reason. Now we pick up the bill for the short-term (and long-term) homeless from across southern CT.

And where do people want to go if they have a traumatic injury? Yale New Haven, of course, one of the best trauma hospitals in the country. Wonderful, but could we get a little help with the bill for the services non-profits don’t pay for? Come on, neighbors.

We have a full-time lobbyist/liaison, and it may be that we’re very effective at the state level, but frankly, I don’t see it. Perhaps the PILOT would have ceased to exist without that effort. The way things are going, it may anyway.

posted by: akb8a on May 20, 2010  1:50pm

BDD - I wonder why you say Dildine isn’t representing his constituents?  Greg at least bothered to ask *multiple times* and through multiple outlets, for people to contact him with their concerns about the budget.  I did and I got a well thought out response addressing these concerns. Did I agree with every comment?  Not necessarily, but in general I feel like my comments were accounted for.  That is a heck of a lot more than I ever got before from any other elected official.  Why not wait and see how the voting goes?

posted by: blue dog dem on May 20, 2010  1:50pm

DS,

Everyone who has met him has said that he is a great guy and I am not disputing that.  As to whether he is “working tirelessly” to help solve the budget ... I would expect someone with those qualifications and minimal time restraints to proffer many solutions to the budget and not just tell me that it is more complex than what it appears.  In contrast, one can compare the efforts of Kerekes, someone with a full-time job, and see that Ward 25 isn’t getting the same “tireless” efforts as NHCAN volunteers produce.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on May 20, 2010  3:12pm

The tax increases should finish the Mayor at the next election.  Tea Partyists should really start banging a gong in New Haven.

posted by: Tim Holahan on May 20, 2010  3:12pm

As a 25th warder and a reasonably vocal critic of this administration’s budgetary practices, I want to voice my support for Greg Dildine. From what I see, Greg is putting a lot of time and thought into finding a way forward for the city, and figuring out how to best represent the particular interests of his constituents. To criticize him as inactive is simply inaccurate.

Leaving the pseudonym issue aside, it’s a bit ridiculous to talk about “solutions to the budget”. New Haven’s financial predicament is bad, but it’s also wicked complex. Here’s a quick recap:

* we’re very deep in debt
* a major revenue source (the state) is drying up
* we’re a poor city providing non-taxable services to rich neighbors
* our population demographics mean that we have a high internal demand for services as well
* fixed costs (debt service and contractual obligations) are crowding out discretionary funds
* our personnel decisions are not entirely within our control due to contracts

What’s the “solution” to that?

It seems to me that we’re going to see both significant service cuts and significant tax increases over the next five years. If you want, you can blame this on decisions, some of them unwise, that were made over the past decades.

Greg’s been an alderman for five months. The guy has barely cast a vote. Give him a break. Reserve judgment until he’s had a chance to act.

posted by: blue dog dme on May 20, 2010  3:42pm

TH,

I haven’t said he wasn’t a good alderman, and since he came from your circle, am not surprised by your support.  I don’t know of anything other than office hours he has done for the ward, but will take your opinion as truth.  What I stated was that I thought before he was elected that he would be part of the machine.  In my conversations with him he stated that it was a complex matter and more than what it seemed.  Your points are more specific than the generalities shared by GD with me and my main issue currently is that I wish him to be more like Goldson in his opposition to the budget.

My idea of a representative is someone who represents his constituents and not a voicebox for the unilateral decisions of JDS, quickly rubberstamped by the alders.  His ability to listen to our issues is commendable, but if that doesn’t translate into action, then it is useless. 

I’d like to know how many of my neighbors are for the budget with the 4% increase or against it and sending it back to the table for new cuts, ones that aren’t vindictive in nature, such as the Christmas Tree and fireworks.  The majority of our opinions should be how he votes, and not for the increase while explaining the complexity of the issue.  This issue has been developing for at least the last four years and I am tired of our elected officials stating how “difficult” it is or how “complex” it is, like all of a sudden they are enlightened because they are elected and the rest of us are as dumb as they hope us to be.

As stated, I never met the man and wish him no ill.  Nor am I trying to be troublesome as most liberals love to shoot the messanger and exhonerate the wrongdoer (e.g., JDS’ last three terms).  What I am saying is that he is our elected representative and he should vote for what the majority of his constituents desire.  If that were to happen throughout the city, then the budget would not pass and the effective cuts would begin.  If not, those of us who believe in accountability will hope that all who side with JDS, include the mayor, will be swept out of office in the next election.

posted by: Uncle Egg on May 20, 2010  4:03pm

The tea party? Give me a break. If that pathetic gaggle of knuckle-dragging flag-wavers shows up, they’ll be laughed out of town just like they were last time.

New Haven is full of proud and patriotic liberals who are happy to stand side-by-side with their conservative counterparts on this issue and demand budget restraint. (Believe it or not, we don’t love taxes—we just want to be damn sure we get what we’re paying for.) But we won’t do it if Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity are calling the shots.

posted by: cedarhillresident on May 20, 2010  6:51pm

I am with Uncle Egg! I call myself a Liberal (with a dash of conservative) It is about transparency. Making sure the money is being spent right and in the right places. Having to go through the list of what is wrong in this city is WAY to long….most are asking for cuts from the top…why because programs and helping the helpless does matter! We are fighting because this city government is leaning to the tea party side…they cut from the bottom! the are sucking the blood from the residents that are hurting. Pushing a class out of New Haven.

posted by: Morris Cove Islander on May 20, 2010  9:39pm

Tim Holahan you are right - with your short overview of the city’s situation. Starting with
* we’re very deep in debt ... etc.
* our personnel decisions are not entirely within our control due to contracts

This leads to the following questions
- what happened in the past when wasteful spending was agreed to?
- has the BOA finally woken up?
- why did the Finance Committee not immediately send back DeStefano’s budget? Instead they wasted time.

We have NO inflation in the nation and debts galore in New Haven. Still the BOA and its committees even considered an increased budget? 

Sing the song of the “contracts” to your grandma. She might believe it. The state of Connecticut successfully renegotiated contracts. Unions agreed to givebacks. Instead of a contractual agreed 5 % raise in our house that meant 0 % AND furlough days on top. In ADDITION the raise for next year is canceled too.

But in New Haven renegotiations are not possible - am I supposed to believe that?

posted by: Tim Holahan on May 21, 2010  2:33pm

I want to respond to a few of the points that have been directed at me (in case anyone’s still reading this thread).

Blue Dog Dem:

I’m not part of any “circle” I’m aware of, nor is Greg.

Greg and I share an interest in city politics and policy, but to the extent that I know him, it’s been mainly through his outreach to me, an active constituent, since his election. I had no involvement in his decision to run, though he did ask if I was considering running before he announced. Being an alderman is clearly a thankless task, so I applaud him for his willingness to take it on.

I wouldn’t want Greg to be a second Darnell. I’m glad Darnell won his race, and that he’s raising important issues in his inimitable style. Greg has a very different style, and each of them brings something of value to the Board. I hope they’ll figure out how to work together (with at least twelve more aldermen) to make positive change in New Haven.

I don’t expect Greg to vote the way I would, nor is it reasonable to suggest that he should figure out what some theoretical majority of his constituents want and vote that way. I expect him to do his homework, think hard about what’s best for Ward 25 and the city, and vote accordingly. He may draw different conclusions than I do from the same facts. If he acts in good faith, which I am confident he will, he will have served responsibly.

That’s our (lower-case R) republican system of government. If you don’t like what Greg does, run for office yourself.

Morris Cove Islander:

We may not like being told that the budget is complex, but it’s the gospel truth.

The binding arbitration process makes contract negotiation risky for the city if an administration tries to enforce its will on the unions. (I don’t think that’s a bad thing, though some people say the arbitration system is too-easily gamed.)

I agree with many of Jeffrey Kerekes’ criticisms of the current budget and budget process, but I don’t think Jeffrey has, nor would he claim to have, ready-to-implement “solutions” for the larger problems facing the city now and in the coming years. He’s made significant efforts to identify possible savings, but it’s not as if he or NHCAN has proposed anything remotely like a solution. What they want, and what I want, is more-transparent government and more collaborative and responsible decision-making.

As I see it, the only valid “solution” to our problems will emerge from an extended, sometimes heated, conversation amongst ourselves. I’m happy to see that that conversation is beginning to take place, but it’s just beginning. It’s too late this year to have a serious impact on the budget, but if you give a damn about New Haven, and aren’t just grouchy about a possible tax increase, keep paying attention and speak out after the Mayor’s budget (as amended) is passed. Let’s make sure that next year the conversation is in full swing before the Mayor proposes anything.

Here’s a simple truth: we get the government we deserve.

posted by: Morris Cove Islander on May 21, 2010  11:32pm

... still reading Tim Holahan

The state of CT did NOT “enforce its will on the unions”. Just so much about your wording I disagree with.

I agree with your analysis when it comes to this year’s “success”. We have to make sure that we will be even more forceful next year, make sure that everybody understands the times of wasteful spending are over and communicate clearly with aldermen what we as voters expect and want. I plan on getting some insight starting this fall. 

Besides that I think that NHCAN should find a viable, competent, independent candidate who is willing and able to run for mayor. Let this be the beginning of the end for DeStefano and many of his incompetent friends in office.

posted by: blue dog dem on May 23, 2010  12:18pm

TH,

I was away and didn’t have a chance to respond and now I’m off to a wedding, but didn’t want to go to long without answering your post.

I was under the impression that both you and GD were part of the 25th Ward Democratic Committee, aka Westville’s Skull & Bones, where only an anonymous 50 people are involved secretly determining the fates of the rest of us, and that you ran for co-chair and lost, and they nominated and endorsed GD.  Sorry for my not including all of that rather than say “circle.”

I am confused by your attending the budget meetings against a tax raise but willing to put your tax increase in GD’s hands since he will make the best decision for our Ward.  Why not just meet with him during office hours and have him vote his conscience so that you can spend more time with your family?  The stench of politics sickens me, and I have never desired to have a political life.  I have, probably more so than most of the people who read these pages, contributed heavily to JDS and his campaigns, receiving personal calls requesting thousands in additional money, and that is why I am so against his “principles” as I’ve found he has none and am willing to contribute to those who oppose him and to speak against those who support his agenda. 

I tried to play the good soldier and keep my moderate viewpoints, but they are not shared by the administration and I have moved on.  I have told him and his minions that the well for them is dry and that they should look for new prey/suckers/contributors as those who have had longstanding dealings with him have all become completely disillusioned, except those who are part of the Machine.

As for getting the government that we deserve, that is only partially true.  Those of us in the minority get the gov’t that the majority deserves and that we are told to tolerate.  It’s our form of gov’t and why many of us, and some more loudly than others, try to influence those on the sidelines, the “silent majority” that needs to awaken and put their votes where their conscience lies.

posted by: working(too hard) mom on May 23, 2010  10:18pm

I reside in the 25th ward and am reserving judgement on Greg for now.  I generally do not like it when candidates are hand picked by thier predecessor, but how he votes on the issues is all that matters.
I do know that I am sick and tired of the status quo here in New Haven and will not tolerate a Board of Alders and Mayor that do not consider the will of the people. I will give my time and money to any candidate of any party that can rise above the rubber stampers and challenge City Hall to do the right thing. Whatever happens this week (budget-wise), we all have to get out there and VOTE next election. We ultimately have the power, we just need to use it.

posted by: Tim Holahan on May 27, 2010  11:42am

Blue Dog Dem,

Mary Faulkner and I ran for ward committee co-chair in March 2008. The race is well-documented on the Independent. After we lost, Mary, Jessica Feinleib (a supporter and active Democrat), and I asked Barbara Segaloff and Tony Wallace to appoint us to fill the empty seats on the Committee, because we felt we could contribute. They graciously agreed.

Since then, the Ward Committee has met twice, once just after the election during which the primary order of business was a discussion of the presidential primary, and once last summer to endorse Greg Dildine. I don’t think Greg was on the Committee at that point, though he may now be, ex officio. I don’t know for sure.

I continue to think that the ward committees should be more transparent in their workings, and should be more of a venue for discussion and debate within the party. The truth is, I’m too busy with work and family to do anything about it, and I’m not sure my fellow Democrats really share that view.

On the tax question:

Our taxes are going to go up. Our services are going to be cut. As far as I can see, these things are inevitable given our financial condition and the state’s.

My purpose in testifying before the Finance Committee last month was not to protest the inevitable, but to ask the aldermen to put more effort into making sure that our money is spent responsibly and transparently.

When times were good, this administration made some deeply unwise decisions about spending. Now that times aren’t so good, the Mayor and his deputies refuse to be realistic about the predicament we’re in. I believe that both of these behaviors are due in part to a lack of oversight by the Board.

That kind of leadership gives liberalism a bad name. To be specific, our over-spending on school construction and under-spending on education reform has given us a reputation throughout the state as irresponsible managers of state aid. I’m afraid that will limit New Haven’s opportunities for decades.

posted by: blue dog dem on May 27, 2010  2:40pm

TH,

I know nothing of the ward committee, so if my writing was inaccurate, I apologize.  But since it’s supposed to be a super secret if someone is on it (probably with a secret handshake), those of us excluded aren’t really in the know.

I agree with most of your statements except for the inevitablitily of our taxes going up.  If the alders voted as their constituents wished, then they would have to scrap this budget and go back to the drawing board.  There are tens of millions of dollars of waste in this city, and if it was removed, we could probably have a property tax decrease for the budgetary items.  Unfortunately the non-budget items such as healthcare and pension obligations wouldn’t allow it. That being said, the status quo is still better than an increase, even with some services being cut. 

It is idiotic to have more than 2 assistant principles in the schools.  I’m from NYC and there is only one AP and one Principal in each high school and they test higher and have more students than what they have here in New Haven.

None of the alderpersons, including GD, should pretend that this is difficult.  Just say no and send it back.  It’s not their budget or their money, so let JDS cut more things and allow us to keep our cash.  If the city came to a standstill because there was no budget, as the federal system did back in the 1990’s, would anyone notice? It’s not like we have all these services now that would suddenly disappear.  There is only one Christmas tree and one Fourth of July, so he can’t cut those again.

My concern is for my neighbors, especially the elderly ones, that have to take in boarders or make drastic changes to their lifestyles at such advanced ages on fixed incomes.  Asking me to pay an additional $60 month is no big deal, but to them, it is a major expense.  Liberals are supposed to be interested in taking care of those who can’t help themselves.  I think people in the 70’s or older should qualify.  That being said, if GD votes for this budget, he should be voted out by the elderly in the next election cycle, if anyone bothers to run against him.

Events Calendar

view the full calendar »

SeeClickFix »

Yale bus ran red light very fast
Sep 2, 2010 11:23 pm
Address: 137 York St,New Haven,CT 06510,USA
Rating: 1

Yale bus #27 ran the red light at Crown while traveling at a high rate of speed on York St.,...

more »
Yale bus ran red light very fast
Sep 2, 2010 11:23 pm
Address: 137 York St,New Haven,CT 06510,USA
Rating: 1

Yale bus #27 ran the red light at Crown while traveling at a high rate of speed on York St.,...

more »
Blighted Property
Sep 2, 2010 7:38 pm
Address: 17 Nash St,New Haven,CT
Rating: 1

This house has furniture, appliances, old rubber tires and various debris strewn around on the front...

more »

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design