New Haven Independent

posted by: dcoon on April 23, 2010  4:07pm

Rad photo art T. MacMillon.  Now we’re talking.

posted by: David Cameron on April 23, 2010  6:23pm

Now that the details of the Gates deal have been released, the alders will have to decide 1) whether the city is getting, as the agreement says, fair market value for leasing its parking meter operations to Gates for $50 million in 2010-15 and 2)whether the city’s commitment to pay Gates $120 million in 2010-35 in return for that $50 million is a good deal for city taxpayers.  I suspect the answer to both questions is no.

Note, by the way, that the deal will result in a $3.9 million deficit in the proposed 2010-2011 budget.  The budget includes $10 million in its summary of revenues in 2010-11 but doesn’t include on the expenditure side the $3.9 million the city will have to pay Gates in 2010-11.

posted by: harry david on April 23, 2010  8:04pm

As noted earlier by the City, the key feature of this deal that makes it attractive to the City is the fact that the City exercises control over Parking Operations. This means in effect that the City retains on it’s payroll the 115 or so personnel who pull in an average of $70,000 per employe per year—- assuming all benefits and pensions, etc., are fully accounted for.

If the City is doing such a good job of managing this revenue stream, it should be able to borrow what is necessary at favorable municipal bond rates (non-taxable) and make the necessary investments in automation and technology.

This deal smells of more of the same. It is not a good deal and will require higher taxes in future—to offset the revenue loss from this deal— in return for a short term gain of $6 million this fiscal year.

If the Board of Aldermen approve this deal they will richly deserve all the oppobrium that they deserve.

Can nothing be done to stop this dissipation of our patrimony??

posted by: Paul Wessel on April 23, 2010  10:42pm

Harry David - Most of those 15 employees made $30,000 fours years ago - with benefits they cost closer to $43,000 annually.  They produced, on average, $130,000 in collected ticket revenue each year - and $57,000 in the year following from late paid tickets.  And the ticket penalties have been raised since then, so they produce even more value now.

Criticize the deal, but don’t muddy the facts. And don’t trash the workers.

posted by: Save money on April 23, 2010  11:01pm

Give full control to this company for 25 years, eliminate the workforce (major tax savings) Now that is how you save money. After 25 years renewal with more revenue to the city.

posted by: Burning Rivers on April 24, 2010  9:51am

The link to the sub lease does not work. But I’ve read enough to think 1 Unionized Avenue should do a background check on these guys. Or better still the guys on the Arena Block.  Just easy stuff. When was the LLP formed. What other business do they have. Who are the partners. Where are they getting the cash. Who are they related to.

posted by: ConnieMac on April 24, 2010  10:24am

Page 2 from the contract link in the story:

“...even if the net revenues from the operation of the Parking Meter Operations are less than are necessary to cover the rent payable under the Sublease, the City’s obligation to make such payments is in no way limited to or by the availability of such Parking Revenues and the City shall be unconditionally committed to pay make such payments as an obligation of the City…”

What part of “City shall be unconditionally committed to pay” makes this a good deal? The Cleveland based Gates group has zero, zip, zilch risk while we taxpayers are left holding the bag.

This deal stinks.

posted by: East Rocker on April 24, 2010  4:24pm

Melissa/NHI -

Is it possible to post the actual text of the deal the city negotiated?  Is that a document you can obtain?  (Whether through congenial means or through FOI?)  I think it is very important for the public to be able to see all of the details in this proposed deal.

posted by: Bill Saunders on April 24, 2010  7:47pm

Save money is on the money!!!!! The leaseback only preserves empire.

So, under these arrangements, to put it in real terms, we, the taxpayer continue pay (for the next 25 years) the employees, their benefits, plus the giant interest payment to Gates, even though we will be getting no direct benefit from this deal after the first five years of this agreement.  What is the REAL interest we are paying on this money, factoring in the employee/benefit angle???

You know, I don’t think that new multi-million dollar management software is going to help.  Garbage In, Garbage Out, as they say—oh wait, that’s a different thread….....

posted by: East Rocker on April 25, 2010  8:40am

Thanks, Melissa.

posted by: Elected Offical on April 26, 2010  6:59am

WHAT ABOUT THE REPLACEMENT OF THE REVENUE AT THE END OF THE FIVE YEARS???????
THE RATING AGENCIES WILL DOWNGRADE TEH CITY OF NEW HAVEN FOR SELLING OFF A RELIABLE REVENUE STREAM.HOWMUCH IN POTENTIAL INTEREST WILL ANY DOWNGRADING IMPACT THE TAXPAYERS OF NEW HAVEN. ALDERMAN PLEASE DO NOT SIMPLY RUBBERSTAMP THIS DEAL. IT MAY BE IRRESPONSIBLE.

posted by: Doyens on April 26, 2010  7:56am

I appreciate finally knowing the details and reading the excellent analysis by each of the individuals.

This deal should not be approved on three grounds: First, we can net the same amount of money by charging more at the meter and implementing the pay kiosks quicker assuming the representations on the kiosks are true which is certainly questionable. Secondly, this deal allows City Hall to keep spending and borrowing money it doesn’t have. Third, it builds into all succeeding budgets a structural deficit through the loss of meter revenue.

The mayor says we have to do this because these are not normal times. Then why are we spending money like we do in “normal times?”

posted by: jayj on April 26, 2010  2:59pm

hey Paul Weessel - I think Harry David was simply pointing out that the city is losing the meter revenue that pays their salary - and if we’re talking about mudding the facts, I am pretty sure that base salary, plus overtime, and with a comprehensive benefits package, including health care, pension, time off, etc will exceed the 43k you mentioned.

posted by: Huh? on April 26, 2010  5:08pm

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bizarre way to cope with the budget problem?  For a quick chunk of cash to plug the hole, the city commits to paying a LOT more in 25 years.  All without ever rezoning the existing parking, charging to park at night when the streets fill with people from other towns, or doing anything else to make this lucrative source of revenue produce more.
Is the administration thinking: “Let’s offload the problem to 25 years from now, when there will be a different mayor and it won’t be my problem anymore”?  I have to say that’s what it sounds like.