New Haven Citizens’ Action Network

See below for a NYTimes article and Harry David’s contextualization.

Note the size of Vallejo — 115,000 compared to New Haven/s 120,000. Vallejo’s payroll costs were 80% of the General Fund compared to New Haven’s 65%. New Haven’s Mayor will be proposing some modest payroll trimming that may not be sufficient. We have the experience of Waterbury to look to and to try to avoid going down the path of profligate spending in a constrained tax climate. Harry

US | May 8, 2008
City Council in Bay Area Declares Bankruptcy
By JESSE McKINLEY
The unanimous vote was cast after efforts to squeeze concessions out of Vallejo City employees failed and with the city facing a $16 million shortfall for the fiscal year.

We have a $17 Million shortfall this current fiscal year alone.

The below subsidies are rather small and dropping them should have minimal impact as the table clearly illustrates. Why do we need to subsidize the airport for $12.58 per flight? We can keep the airport, end the controversy among residents for $12.58 per flight. Compare $12.58 per flight with $6.03/rider of the trolley. From a subsidy standpoint, we would be better off flying people around then sending them by trolley. More seriously, the trolley is “free” to riders and only 9 people per hour? It looks like even when you give this service away, people are not interested. If it provides a service for those who are unable to walk, we could give them cab vouchers at a considerable cost savings.

(NHCAN) is pleased to announce the budget recommendations for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year. We have prepared a list of recommendations including the ending of unsustainable subsidies, to the reorganization of departments, to the transformation of the budget document itself. Below you will find the link to the full document (2.3 MB), as well as, shorter versions of the document. We recognize that some of these recommendations may be impractical or even naïve. We invite you to consider these in the spirit in which it is offered and to offer superior alternatives for the general good. We look forward to continuing this discussion.

2008-2009 Budget Public Comments(2.3 MB)

Executive Summary Only (414 KB)
Full Document Without the Appendices (1.4 MB)
Appendices Only (2.0 MB)

I come late to this discussion. Yale is funding this new EDC to the tune of $320K a year — which will probably cover staff salaries and travel budgets. M. Whelley must be coming to this new position with definite ideas as to what it will take to stem the outflow of business and to attract newcomers to New Haven since she has done this previously in Baltimore.

So the question becomes — ” What did M. Whelley accomplish in Baltimore during her tenure there and what support and how effective were the City and STate entities she had to deal with and through? Since Yale is behind this initiative one might conclude that they are comfortable with her thinking on this score and that they like what was accomplished in Baltimore. WE should look to Baltimore to get an insight as to what is in store.

I am not a development expert so can only speculate as to what attracts business to one locale versus another. Quality of life is an obvious factor in determining whether people move to the suburbs or come to the City. If we asked businesses that have left the City or those that considered coming, what factors drove their decision?
Perhaps Yale’s investments in the City will be used to leverage other business investment? In which case the degree to which this new EDC can operate independently of the City may be key to it’s success. The constitution of the rest of the Board may be quite important.

I have no supporting evidence, yet I suspect that the City’s attractiveness to business as well as to new residents is a function of it’s effectiveness in delivering City services. Again without supporting evidence, I would posit that the City’s educational system is also a major factor in determining whether people want to locate here and helps determine whether business expansion is supported by the educational skills of the labor force.

So I raise the question — how effective can this new EDC be if related steps are not taken to improve the cost effectiveness of City service delivery and if radical improvements are not made in the performance of the Education system of the City?

It is also logical to think that the attractiveness of the City for businesses and residents depends on how taxpayers feel about the value they receive for the tax dollars they are required to pay. If City taxes are high, are projected to increase significantly over the next 5 years and if improvements are not made to the cost effectiveness of City services, then any business thinking of coming here or expanding here must factor in these much higher taxes and uneven service delivery.

Does the new EDC have any capacity to influence these factors? Will it be allowed to?

Finally, I note that the new EDC will include the City’s top two officers who influence the City’s development — City Plans and Economic Development. The new EDC is an indirect reflection on the effectiveness of our economic development efforts. Would economic development have a better chance of being effective if these two departments — and perhaps others — were brought together under an effective leader?

The spectacle of the Building Department trying to become a profit center by charging permit fees unrelated to operating costs from the same investors that the City wishes to attract suggests these departments may be working at cross purposes.

My bottom line is that this new Corporation is necessary given the realities and effectiveness of the Administration’s efforts in this area. If Yale can leverage it’s presence, jobs, investments and brainpower to help the City meet these goals then we must all wish them well in this enterprise.

I am encouraged by this development.

-Harry David, Member, NHCAN Steering Committee

Comments sent via email following Finance Committee Hearings on October 18, 2007.

Gentle Alderpersons (Messrs Goldfield, Jackson-Brooks, Perez, Rodriguez, and Shalek):

I had successfully restrained myself from commenting on this topic during the public hearings last October 18th, but I can resist the temptation no longer and have succumbed. I trust you will be understanding of this human frailty.

You will also excuse my lack of information about the genesis of this project. Foolishly, I had hoped to hear much more details from the presenters and those testifying for this proposal — details such as how the $350 K + requested from the City would be spent. There was no such breakdown in the Powerpoint presentation handed out.

I will assume the the cost of the trolley (s?) is not included in this $350K+ being requested. So the money must be necessary to pay for ongoing operations and maintenance. With the proposed 11 AM -6 PM, Monday to Saturday schedule can I assume that this can be accomodated by the use of one (1) driver/conductor for this vehicle?

If this is a valid assumption then I estimate vehicle operating and maintenance costs, including gas consumed, is about $2-3,000 per week or $100-150,000 a year, of which payroll and benefits may represent $50K a year and gas/maintenance to be $100K a year. Therefore, there must be other cost elements in this scheme that I am not properly estimating. After our discussions about Pensions and Benefits perhaps this number will be insufficient to cover fully loaded payroll costs if the trolley driver is to be a City employee)

What are the costs of operating this service? And what will the ridership be? What will the ridership be?? Commuters? Tourists? Seniors?? ( I thought I heard 60,000 rides a year which comes to about 200 rides a day at a cost of $6+ per ride. Please correct my numbers if I err. If the actual ridership is 60,000 people (not rides? although unlikely in a City of 125,000 souls) then this trolley cost amounts to $6/person/year. A taxi, of course, might be cost effective but will lack the charm of this trolley)

One inconvenient truth. A school bus gets about 3.1 miles per gallon. An average car/taxi gets about 15. So if the trolley has fewer than 5 riders on average it will generate more carbon emissions than the cars/taxi’s it displaces!!! One gallon of gas generates 20 pounds of greenhouse emissions.

ALTERNATIVES

1) OTHER SHUTTLE SERVICES I believe there already are other shuttle services in New Haven. I think Yale has one and there may be others, quite apart from the City’s regularly operated bus services. Since one of the attractions of the trolley is to allow some of us to indulge ourselves in nostalgia without the nuisance of paying for such, perhaps the City can negotiate with either the Yale shuttle or City bus service to donate the trolleys to them and obtain their agreement to use the trolleys during the prime nostalgia hours of 11-6 PM for shuttling people along a circuit that the City can define. Why can it not be one of the regular routes or some modified route that satisfies those who wish to have this service?? Why not replace our existing bus fleet with trolleys when they need replacement?

2) THE BICYCLE OPTION. Another alternative may be for the City to provide about 2,000 bicycles parked in strategic locations for the free use of anyone. Sign a maintenance contract with the Devil’s Gear (full disclosure — I know the folks there and would like to get them some of the action) to keep these bikes in fine fettle. Assume a wastage/pilferage rate of 50% a year. $350K will get you about 3,500 NEW bikes, many, many more if bicycle donations are solicited (I hereby donate two bikes that I don’t need). Of course it will be hard for seniors and stroller pushing mothers to benefit from this, but Thursday’s Powerpoint presentation did not break down the composition of the anticipated ridership. Perhaps we can have both a bicycle program AND a trolley run by an existing bus service? But I slip into social engineering here.

3) If the ridership is 60,000 a year as projected , then this amounts to around $6 a ride. Even allowing free rides for seniors offset by some interior advertising revenues, this project could still be self-sustaining at a modest $5 per ride. Isn’t it interesting that a trolley service costing $6+ per ride cannot count on ANY paying fares from the ridership? For $6+ per ride -$24 if we can squish 4 riders in a cab — we might just be able to interest Yellow Cabs to do the job and pay them up to $24 per trip to any destination, with the rider paying the balance. I think $6-24 per ride –assuming 1-4 persons per cab –will get anyone anywhere in New Haven. But this is getting fanciful and the sound you hear is just me slapping down my own hand.

CONCLUSION

One reason I restrained myself from commenting last Thursday is the futility of it all. Someone most high must favor this project and these public hearings gave those who want the service a chance to make their case. Gary Doyens and Ken Joyner of our group — New Haven Citizens Action Network speaking in their personal capacities — were so tepid in their support for this proposal that I got the impression they were not in favor!!! Given the pull senior citizens and exhausted mothers with strollers have on the heartstrings of the Board I would predict that this proposal will muster a majority from the stolid sixteen. Alderman Perez and a few others tiptoed gingerly around this proposal so as not to offend anyone but he may not find 15 other Alderpersons to vote this down. I really thought the presence of the three seniors at the hearing, one with a walking stick, a rather nice touch.

I trust you will do your best to mitigate the costs of this project and spare our parking garage peddlers some of the 0.08 mils equivalent this proposal will cost them. We should prepare a list of other non-voting constituencies to get in line for other similar projects that we don’t wish to burden the taxpayers directly with.

I am all in favor of adding charm and nostalgia to a City much deprived of same. I just wish we could find someone else to foot the bill.

With best wishes,
I remain respectfully,

Harry I David.

New Haven Citizens Action Network (NH CAN) was created last summer by a group of New Haven citizens who wished to participate in the deliberations of the Board of Aldermen during the 2007-8 budget process. Our objectives were to ensure that the proposed budget fiscally sound and would not create a tax burden on future taxpayers. We were also interested in keeping city government open to participation from the general public.

Summer has come and gone. The BOA has not welcomed citizen inputs and had prevented public comments on items before the Board. There is a solid majority of the BOA that votes as a block to approve the Mayor’s wishes without too much challenge. Consequently, New Haven CAN has shifted it’s focus – from working with the Alders to working to elect more independent minded Aldermen willing to check the Mayor’s propensity to tax and spend.

The New Haven 2007-8 budget totals $445 million, with Special Funds and Capital expenses adding another $272 million. This is equal to over $14,000 per New Haven household. Of this amount, about 30% is paid directly by City taxpayers, another 50% comes from State taxpayers with the remaining 20% being borrowed. The City has commitments of over $1,100,000,000 – about $22,000 per household — for pension liabilities, debt and retiree health care. Future taxpayers must pay for this.

The budget process is seriously flawed. There is no culture of cost control, of eliminating unnecessary activities to pay for new initiatives. Transparency is lacking. Education spending accounts for 38% of the General Fund. Yet one has to estimate the additional costs for employee benefits, pensions, debt service, the Capital and Special Fund accounts to get a better estimate of total education costs which are closer to 61% of total spending of $717 million.

The budget process is not integrated with the cost drivers that dominate the budget. Contract negotiations commit taxpayers for a good part of the budget, yet occur independently of the budget process. Pension plans still use the more expensive Defined Benefits approach rather than the more widely used Defined Contribution approach.

The budget process does not relate expenditures to any measures of anticipated outcomes. What should we expect for the $17,000 spent per school student each year? How effectively can we expect Police and Fire personnel to respond to incidents? For Public Works to repair sidewalks and roads?? Etc.. There is no reference to such benchmarks in the 400 plus pages of the budget.

See the NH Register article reporting a budget deficit and how the BOA may be voting in another increase tonight.

Check out the NHI:Dollar Deal.

The city wants to give away the Shartenberg site for $1.00. This is concerning during a time of unlawful deficit spending in the city. Call your alderperson!

We believe:

New Haven CAN be greater! New Haven CAN do better! IF
NH Can cut the budget
NH Can be fiscally responsible
NH Can root out wasted dollars
NH Can reign in unnecessary spending and dubious programs

New Haven Citizens Action Network (New Haven CAN) is a citizens action group comprised of New Haven taxpayers concerned about rising taxes and lack of fiscal responsibility in City government.
These New Haven taxpayers decided to form the New Haven Citizens Action Network (New Haven CAN) to raise public awareness of these issues. Every citizen of New Haven is encouraged to join and help make New Haven an affordable City in which to live.

This issue directly affects property owners AND tenants. While property owners see a direct impact on their costs, renters pay these same taxes as a portion of rent. With this huge increase landlords are forced to raise rents significantly. You can find out more about NH CAN at our website: www.nhcan.org

Last night the New Haven Board of Aldermen held a Special Budget Meeting and approved the budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year. The passage of the budget translates as higher spending and a significant escalation of taxes. Those increases will be reflected in the first half of your tax bill due in July 2007. You can see the results of roll call votes here: http://www.nhcan.org/boa-accountability-project/

Analysis:

It was encouraging to listen to the discussion about the budget and its potential to be trimmed. However, in the end, very little was cut and the results are major tax and spending increases for city residents and property owners.

There is a glimmer of hope with an amendment proposed by Finance Chair and major presenter Alderman Sergio Rodriguez requesting the Mayor report back to the BOA by September 1st on a plan to increase fiscal responsibility through performance based budgeting and changes in employee benefit plans. However, we feel the Finance Committee efforts ended as an appeasement to all of the citizens who hoped for substantial budget reductions. Ironically, those who voted for this favorable amendment, including Alderperson Rodriguez, also voted against very modest proposals to cut about $4MM from the budget.

These cuts would not have affected any services or cut any staff since the proposal by Alderman Jorge Perez simply eliminated funding for positions that must, for technical and practical reasons, remain unfilled.

Yet the majority of the Board voted this amendment down. Some offered explanations — Alderman Mattison objected to the lack of sufficient notice ( NH CAN knew about these positions by attending workshops and public hearings). Alderman Roland Lamar felt it would be “irresponsible” of him to cut these minuscule amounts without knowing the full impact on the performance of these departments (If these positions are not filled and won’t be how can performance be impacted?). We find this rationale lacking and insufficiently based on facts.

It was encouraging to hear Alderman Robert Lee inject some realism into the discussion by declaring that while this amendment did not propose staff reductions, the NH BOA should be prepared for these too. He aptly noted that private industry eliminates jobs all the time, especially in difficult times.
In the final votes amendments aimed at trimming the budget failed. The budget was approved almost exactly as proposed by Mayor John DeStefano and his Department Heads.

Out of almost three-quarters of a BILLION dollars in the City’s expenditures in the General Fund ($445 MM), the Special Fund ($134MM) and the Capital Fund ($137MM), our elected Aldermen could not find even $4MM to cut from programs and from personnel not yet hired. New Haven taxpayers will now face higher tax bills in June. Spending has has now reached about $717MM or approximately $5,700 PER PERSON!

We specifically commend those Alderpersons who voted against the budget, against increasing your taxes: Smart, Colon, Jackson-Brooks, and Lee. Thank you for refusing to be a rubberstamp for overspending. Thank you for placing your responsibilities to the taxpayers ahead of personal loyalties and fear of political retribution.

In addition to the above four Alders, we thank Alderpersons Perez, Paolillo, James, Lee, Atunes, Chen and Castro for voting for the budget cutting amendments.