http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/nov/16/zelinsky-just-say-destefano/

Can we decrease spending and increase revenue to cover $100 Million? This is what we need to do in five years to cover a $82 Million shortfall and raise the emergency fund to 5% of our budget (another $22 million). This is not counting any drastic measures by the State to cut our PILOT or ECS (Education) funding.

Other interesting findings such as spending $1.5 Billion Dollars on Schools without checking to see if we need to build so many schools — is this why the census is so low at schools? If our census at schools do not match what we told the state, the State is going to send us a bill for the difference. I believe we have already had to pay back about $65 million in money for things which the State never approved. Where does it end???

http://www.johndestefanojr.com

We had a very successful turn out last evening and even won over the people turned out by the Mayor. Lets keep up the pressure to have the Board of Aldermen send the budget back to the Mayor.

GATEWAY TERMINAL — Question #1

(3/11/2010) Q: I am interested to know why the Gateway Terminal only pays a few hundred dollars a year on taxes instead of $235,000? If we plan on raising taxes, shouldn’t we be collecting it from all entities? Are there other similar/related instances in the city?

A: The City of New Haven has been actively and effectively seeking tax payments from Waterfront Enterprises regarding its property at Gateway Terminal. In fact, in 2009, the City recovered nearly half a million dollars in back taxes owed by Waterfront Enterprises.

PENSIONS, HEALTHCARE & WORKER’S COMPENSATION — Question #2

(3/11/2010) Q: What is the city’s plan to deal with the dramatically increasing costs associated with pensions, healthcare, retiree healthcare, and workers compensation? They are rising much faster then we can keep up particularly given the deficits with the State Budget?

A: If you review the City’s Legislative agenda the City is currently seeking State Legislation to change the Rules of Binding Arbitration where the majority of our contractual obligations as they relate to pensions and healthcare are ultimately determined. The City is also taking aggressive stances in our negotiation of contracts to reduce future burdens. In addition, the City has an active RFP process for the administration of all these funds. In the past five years the City has competitively bid Pensions, Health Care, Workers’ Compensation, Short Term Disability and Life Insurance Coverage. By bidding the administration of each service on a rotating basis the City can attract competitive bids for a reasonable period (average 3-4 years before re-bid) and give each RFP process the attention it deserves to guarantee the most competitive prices and service.

Question #3 — Not Answered Yet

#3: Why are we giving Chris DePino $50,000 a year as a state lobbyist when we have 8 Representative (2 senators and 6 reps) at the capitol? What have been the total payments to him for lobbying over all the years and what was the first year he was paid? What has his total ROI been from his specific efforts? Same thing with the about $100,000 we spend with William & Jennings our “Washington Communicator”?

Question #4 — Not Answered Yet

#4 Under current contracts, does the City have the power to unilaterally change the work requirements such that we move City Hall to a four day work week and cut all related expenses including a proportional amount of salaries and benefits? You might not be able to change the contract on the days they actually work, but can you indirectly deal with this by decreasing the number of days?

TRAVEL — Question #5

(3/11/2010) Q: Why not freeze all travel expenses? The Mayor’s budget proposes $724,333 to spend on travel expenses.

A:The City is not budgeting $724,272 for travel. The 5300s “Allowance & Travel” that totals $724,333 includes the Federally Required Mileage Reimbursement, Attendance to Professional Meetings and what could be termed “Travel” and can be used for both transportation, lodging and conference fees.

$649,858 of the $724,333 is attributable to the Board of Education of which the Mayor’s Budget and Board of Aldermen’s Budget do not have line item control. That said, the majority of this is for Athletic Transportation, Security, Field Trips and Professional Meetings, only $52,858 is for “Travel” an average of only $1,000 per school.

The General Government travel and allowance budget is $74,475. This includes $12,500 for the Board of Aldermen for Travel to the National League of Cities Conferences and $18,000 for the Mayor’s Office which includes the cost of conferences and delegation visits to D.C. The remainder of these funds cover Mileage ($25,492) and the registration for professional meetings ($18,483) which include Assessor, Tax Collector, Finance, Registrar of Voters, Health, Police, Fire, Building and other related required professional conferences where current regulations are discussed, the majority of which are in state.

ELM CITY RESIDENT CARD — Question #6

(3/11/2010) Q: The citizens of New Haven were promised by many Alders and the Mayor that the Municipal ID program would only be paid for by grant funding yet we see $53,833 for a staff member (does not include pension and benefits, or unassigned managers who oversee this project) and $190,372 (in the general fund Form 106 for the CSA) in operating expenses totaling about $1/4 Million dollars. I have no philosophical problems with this program. I did state before it was approved that I didn’t think we could afford to add a new program into the budget. I still feel that way. Why is this in the general fund budget?

A:The $190K in the General Fund CSA was a request that was not accepted by the Mayor. The budget recognizes that the ID card has become a standard City Document and as such transfers the responsibility to the Office of Vital Statistics. The Office, which has been understaffed, will see the addition of one new staff position $35,351 (the second position was previously funded with special funds).

TWEED LANDING FEES — Question #7

(3/11/2010) Q: Why haven’t we raised the landing fees at Tweed to be at minimum close to what Waterbury charges? Why not a small increase in the fuel flowage fee?

A: Landing fees are set by a complicated formula, based on the Authority’s costs. They must be approved by FAA and cannot be arbitrary. Unlike Oxford’s rate structure (which the higher charges exceed), Tweed uses a sliding scale of landing fees so single-engine planes pay $2.50 and heavier aircraft pay more.

The scale is as follows: 0-5,000 lb. $2.50

5,001 – 7,500 lb. $6.75

7,501 – 10,000 lb. $9.00

10,001 – 12,500 lb. $11.50

Raising the fuel flowage fee would be counter-productive and would cost the airport revenue. The fuel flow fee is already not competitive with State-owned airports and White Plains. The Airport have solid recent knowledge from Net Jets that they are happy to land here to drop off or pick up passengers, but they arrange things so they do not have to gas up here because it is too expensive.

CITY CLERK — Question #8

(3/11/2010) Q: Why do we pay the City Clerk $46,597 a year, when we only pay aldermen/women $2000 a year and they clearly work harder and vastly more hours? They are both elected positions. Can we cut City Clerk to $2000?

A: This City Clerk’s duties are detailed in Article VIII Sec. 36 of the City Charter. As per Article XXXVI Sec. 208 of the City Charter, any salary increase or decrease be for the full term of office of said elected officer and shall become effective only on the first day of January next succeeding the date of the election of said elected officers, Therefore, as set by ordinance, to change the City Clerk’s salary, this would need to be done on the 1st day of January after the next election– January 1, 2012.

TWEED — Question #9

(3/11/2010) Q: Do you have an official legal opinion from our Corporation Counsel and from the FAA that specifically and unequivocally states we are responsible to pay them back if we close Tweed? If so, can you please send a copy? How much would we exactly owe them? How long must we keep the airport open until that debt is forgiven(if it is forgiven), and under what terms is that debt forgiven? If we closed the airport, on what schedule of repayments would we have to pay the FAA back? What happens if we don’t pay it back (refuse to pay it back)? Why does this liability not show up in any Budget or related documents such as the bond offering statement? If we owe something, even a huge number, we should have it spelled out in detail so as to make informed decisions and if we owe them something, this is a liability that must be reported, no?

A: The approximately $29M in FAA Grants are not liabilities of the City. These grants were made for the development of the Airport to the Airport Authority. If the Airport does not continue to operate as per the Grant Agreement the Grants would need to be repaid just like any other Grant that the City defaulted upon.

The requirement to keep the airport open appears in the Grant Assurances attached to every grant issued by FAA to the Authority. Grant Assurances are taken very seriously. Grant Assurances have been provided to the Board of Aldermen many times.

Closing an airport listed on the national system requires direct personal approval from the Secretary of Transportation, on advice of the FAA Administrator in Washington, D.C. To the best of our knowledge, voluntary closing of an airport with scheduled commercial service has never occurred. As a result, there are no precedents for questions about timing and forgiveness of debt.

If the FAA did approve a request to close the Airport, the Airport must pay the FAA the value of the remaining life of FAA funded improvements or reinvest the amount into another airport in the local system. The Airport would be required to reimburse the FAA or reinvest tin another airport an amount equal to the pro-rata share of the current fair market value of the land.