Panel OKs $475M Budget, With Wishful $$$

Last year it was called ​“I.B.B.” This year’s multimillion dollar hope-and-pray section of the New Haven’s new city budget is called ​“Labor Concessions And/Or Service Reductions.”

That section showed up Thursday night as part of an amendment to the city’s $475 million budget. It’s a brand new $4.3 million chunk of money that lawmakers expect to achieve by winning concessions from labor unions or, failing that, by cutting services.

Like last year’s Innovation-Based Budgeting (I.B.B.), a vague promise of finding efficiencies in government, the new $4.3 million chunk is a part of the budget that is somewhat nebulous. It depends on a variety of other factors that are yet to be determined, like winning contentious contract concessions from several municipal unions.

Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield acknowledged as much, but said there’s no other wiggle room in the budget, given the city’s current economic situation.

As a result of the amendment passing, not-for-profits won’t be paying a new stormwater fee after all. And downtown parkers will feed meters at night.

Goldfield introduced the amendment at Thursday evening’s meeting to the Board of Aldermen’s Finance Committee, which then voted to approve the mayor’s proposed budget as amended. The document now heads to the full Board of Aldermen for a final vote.

The amendment did not change the overall size of the budget at all. It adjusted where the money is coming from and, to some extent, where it’s going. The budget still does not include any increase in property taxes.

In good news for bookworms, the amendment included the surprise restoration of $120,000 in library funding. That means neighborhood branches will be able to stay open on weekends, Goldfield said.

Thursday’s meeting was the culmination of a budget review process undertaken over the past weeks by the Board of Aldermen’s Finance Committee. The body has heard from all city departments and entities covered by the budget, and has also held a series of hearings around town, gathering testimony from citizenry.

Goldfield offered his amendment just moments after the meeting began. He explained that several adjustments to the budget were necessary, given developments that have occurred since the mayor drafted the document.

One of the largest of these was the fact that the city was not able to make a one-time sale of a city parking garage, projected to earn the city $7 million. The amendment made up for that with a combination of revenue increases, including property tax relief from the state, an increased voluntary payment from the parking authority, and increased parking meter receipts.

On the expenditures side of the budget, the amendment reflects a new understanding that privatizing school custodial services will save only half of the $7 million it was projected to. That’s because arbitration is not on track to be settled until the second half of the year, Goldfield said later.

Another loss comes from the fact that a proposed new Stormwater Authority, which would have collected fees from not-for-profits, faces stiff opposition and will not pass the board. ​“The sense is we just weren’t going to get this,” Goldfield said later. That means the city will be on the hook for another $2.5 million that the authority would have paid for.

To make up those and other expenditure increases, the amendment proposes gaining $4.3 million in union concessions. The specific concessions will be worked out with unions as the year goes on, Goldfield said.

East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker expressed some discomfort with just hoping those negotiations go the administration’s way, but said he’d rather vote for the amendment than see an increase in property taxes.

The amendment passed unanimously.

After the meeting, Goldfield said it’s now up to the mayor to win the $4.3 million from unions.

Asked where the specific number came from, he said, ​“It was the number we needed to balance the budget.”

He acknowledged that there’s no guarantee that the the money will come through. ​“If we can’t do it, we’re in trouble,” he said.

“The fact of the matter is there’s only one place we have any flexibility,” Goldfield said. ​“It always comes down to the cost of our workers. … We can’t turn our backs on bond holders.”

Goldfield said the budget amendment was worked out over the last four weeks in meetings between the administration and aldermanic leadership. He declined to speak specifically about how many meetings were held or who was in attendance.

Elicker Amendment Fails

Another amendment, put forward by Alderman Elicker, failed. He proposed creating a line item for independent legal services for the Board of Aldermen.

“My goal is to make legal services for the board more accessible,” Elicker said before the meeting.

Aldermen have several times recently discussed a need for independent counsel, so that the legislative branch of the city government doesn’t need to rely on legal advice from the executive branch.

But at the meeting, Goldfield spoke out against Elicker’s amendment, calling it unnecessary. It died in a voice vote.

Elicker said he’s still considering offering his amendment again when the budget comes before the full Board of Aldermen for a final vote.

As aldermen debated that and other budget issues, the Independent reported live from City Hall:

Live Blog

5:57 p.m.: Aldermen are filtering in to the meeting here in the Aldermanic Chamber. So far Chris Randall is the only member of the public here (aside from your correspondent.) There are seven or eight aldermen wandering around and several big bad budget binders at hand.

6:00: As on Tuesday, pizza is available for aldermen. Word is that it’s from Abate’s on Wooster Street.

6:04: Legislative staff is passing out the agenda. At the conference table are Aldermen Migdalia Castro, Jorge Perez, Andrea Jackson-Brooks, Bitsie Clark, Yusuf Shah, Carl Goldfield, Greg Dildine, Justin Elicker, Maureen O’Sullivan-Best, and Stephanie Bauer. Also present in the chamber: Al Paolillo, Charles Blango, and Matt Smith.

6:08: A couple of citizens and some city officials have taken seats in the gallery.

6:10: Alderman Shah, the chair, calls the meeting to order. He seems to be struggling with a touch of laryngitis as he reads the agenda. Legislative staff hands out a couple of last minute amendments: Blango wants to freeze fees at Lighthouse point. And Rodriguez (Joey or Sergio? Unclear.) and Blango want to give $7,000 to the Board of Aldermen budget for legal services, like Elicker’s amendment.

6:14: Aldermen introduce themselves.

6:15: Item Number one: suspend the phase in of real property valuations.

Perez moves it. He says: This is what freezes the assessments so that people’s taxes don’t go up.

Passes unanimously.

#2 Appropriating Ordinance Number 1. Perez moves it. Goldfield offers an amendment. Castro seconds.

Goldfield: The amendment contains adjustments to the mayor’s budget as submitted based on changes that have happened at the state and to meet colleague’s concerns on how to get a balanced budget. For instance, it was assumed we’d have $2.5 million from Stormwater Authority. That isn’t going to happen so we need to fill that revenue loss. Also changes in aid from state. And changes in expenditures, what we need to spend. For example, we thought we’d get $7 million from privatizing custodians. Even if that goes through, we’ll only get half of that.

Goldfield breaks down an $8 million increase in expected revenue: telecommunications property tax, pilot manufacturing machinery and exuipment, new NHPA pilot ($2 million), property tax initiative (collection rate better than anticipated), property tax relief from state (3.6 million), increased revenue from parking meters due to extended hours.

Then, revenue decreases: the same number: $8 million. Goldfield: We’re not going to sell a parking garage, retail sales tax didn’t happen, nor did room occupancy tax.

Goldfield outlines changes in expenditures: Reduction in custodial services savings will save only $3.5 million. Street lighting underbudgeted; that will cost $300,000 more than expected. Miscellaneous personnel changes and elimination of some police positions will save about $400,000 together. ​“Labor concessions and/or service reductions” accounts for $4.3 million saved. These will be identified and worked out with unions as the year goes on, Goldfield says. Unemployment payments and self-insurance will be reduced, saving $500,000 and $1.7 million respectively. Not having a stormwater authority will increase costs by $2.5 million. Restoring funding for the land trust and the library will cost $17,500 and $120,000 respectively. But funding GASB 43 and 45 [?] will be reduced by $25,000.

6:29: Perez and Goldfield say the self-insurance fund deficit will not increase this year, it just won’t go down as much as expected.

Elicker: I feel uncomfortable with portions of this, particularly the $4.3 million labor concessions line and the $1.7 million self insurance reduction. It feels like we’re using tomorrow’s money today and hoping that certain things fall into place. But I also feel much more uncomfortable with a tax increase and doing monetization. I’m a realist and an idealist. This is the realist side, stand by for the idealist side. I plan to vote for this amendment,

Perez: I’m also uncomfortable with some of this. I don’t agree we’re using tomorrow’s money. We’re not making the self-insurance deficit worse. We’re outlaying what we have in the past for self insurance. … In an ideal world, I would love to have a surplus. You never know when that big case comes in and we have to pay out. We’re still allocating millions for self-insurance against future cases. … By the way, there wasn’t necessarily unanimous consent on this, from the mayor for instance, who would have liked to see a stormwater authority.

Elicker: I thought the big case that came in was Ricci. We’re going to have to make a lot payments some way or another regarding that case.

Perez: I won’t discuss a case going to trial soon. But you know very well there is a plan to handle that that we can’t discuss publicly.

6:37: Dildine: On the concessions line item, with as many open contracts as there are, a budget usual doesn’t predict up or down what will happen. But in this case it is responsible to anticipate savings from that process.

Elicker: I agree that some of these savings will be realized, but in the conversations I’ve heard, not all of these savings will be realized. This number is overestimated.

Goldfield: I always hated Reagan’s ​“family” analogy, but there is some truth to it. All things equal, it would be good to wear down that liability account, like making a contribution to your 401k. To further the analogy, you could take a second job. That’s what I thought the stormwater authority was. … This isn’t perfect. There are assumptions in here that may or may not come to pass. … It’s not like a family budget. … The state budget could blow up. But good things could happen to. Someone could come to the city and build ten skyscrapers. … We’ll all have to be prepared to adjust.

6:41: Castro congratulates Perez for leadership. She says: People are struggling in the city. Taxpayers will be thankful we are not increasing taxes.

No further discussion. The amendment passes. Now back to the original item.

Elicker: I’d like to move Elicker policy amendment #1.

Jackson-Brooks seconds.

Elicker: Now for the idealistic side of me. I’ve had a busy week. I’ve learned about resolve and about the separation of powers. This amendment is simple. It gives the BOA a little bit more flexibility to get access to outside legal counsel. If passed, 16 aldermen can request outside counsel, without going through the president of the board as the process is now. Also, it creates a new line item in the general fund budget for lawyers and legal fees for the board of Aldermen. … Why do this? Number one, sometimes the board needs outside counsel. This makes it faster and easier. Number two, sometimes things are time-sensitive. This makes it faster to bring in. Third, sometimes we need to exercise our power for checks and balances. That’s why I’m proposing this incredibly simple amendment it just makes it easier to do what we already want to do. I’ve change the language to make it more amenable for people around this table. I ask you to renew my optimism and sense of idealism and vote to pass this amendment.

Dildine: I’m interested in the first half of it, but I don’t see it as a simple amendment. I’d like to hear more about the speeding things up, versus the process we have now. ... I see potential unintended consequences to adding another line item. Folks might overbudget because the legal money won’t be with “other contractual services” as it is now.

Goldfield: I’m going to ask colleagues to oppose this. I feel at present that it’s unnecessary. Members can always ask for a legal opinion. I’ve never known the president of the board to ever deny a request for legal services, with one exception that I did say once that I wanted the board to vote on it. I also think there’s something to be said for not speeding this up. Our process encourages proceeding with caution. .... Also, I agree that by creating a line item for legal services, we’re decreasing what we can spend for other contractual. I don’t see that it needs to be separated out.

6:53: Elicker: We have a great president right now. What if we didn’t in the future? This is not about the current president [Goldfield]. It’s important for 16 aldermen to get fast and independent legal services without going through the president. ... It could be a long process otherwise. ... Also, my understanding is that it’s easy to transfer money between accounts. ... Sometimes these services are necessary and sometimes they are not. ... There are other proposals around this, but mine requires a majority to access funds for legal services. This is a reasonable proposal.

Dildine: It seems like this could happen after the budget process, the policy part.

Elicker: This is time-sensitive because by second amendment is to put funds into that account.

Jackson-Brooks: If I’m not mistaken, the only department with legal funds is economic development, which has its own lawyer. Otherwise, all funding for legal services was moved to corporation counsel, except for the department of economic development.

Goldfield: I don’t remember if there were ever separate line items for legal services.

7:02: Goldfield: I want to thank Elicker for the kind words and I expect that he’ll show up at my door looking for outside legal counsel. I’ve never turned it down. I will be favorably disposed if you request. We haven’t needed it.

No further discussion.  Vote: The nays have it the matter fails. There were just a few Aye votes, including Elicker, of course and Jackson-Brooks.

Elicker: My idealism having been crushed I cannot introduce my second amendment, because there is no line item to move the money to.

Shah:This is democracy, it’s how it works.

7:04: Castro: A little announcement, the Dream Act just passed in the state House.

7:05: Now we’re back to the main item.

Elicker and Shah get into a little back and forth about Blango’s fees amendment.

Elicker: I have the floor.

Shah: “Oh you have the floor? You have the floor when I give it to you.”

7:07: Discussion turns to Blango’s fees amendment.

Perez: As much merit as this may have, it has to have a debit and a credit. We need to show where this money is going to come from. So we need to have it at the floor, later.

Shah: No disrespect to you, Alderman Blango, but it has to have a debit and a credit.

Blango, from the gallery: I will look into that to show where we can balance it. I’ll look into who’s coming from out of town to the park [?].

7:11: O’Sullivan-Best: The fee structure came through the parks commission, which I and Castro sit on. There was some background information presented by an outside group.

Blango: We’ll address the matter on the floor.

Perez: We seem to do this backward by approving spending (Item 2) before revenues (Items 3, 4, &c.).

7:14: Alderman Sergio Rodriguez: I’m not getting emails about amendments. IT has shut off city emails because of an investigation. So some people may not be getting email.

Aldermen continue discussion of IT matters. Goldfield offers some advice about setting up multiple accounts.

7:17: Shah: Any further discussion on the matter as amended. No. 2 carries unanimously.

Item 3 moved by Perez.

Perez: Now that we’ve spent the money, we need to raise it with this item.

It passes unanimously.

Item #4: Bond issuance.

Jackson-Brooks moves it. It passes unanimously.

Item #5: School construction bonding.

Castro moves the item. It passes unanimously.

Item #6: License and User Fees.

Someone moves it. It passes unanimously with some further clarification that Blango will present his amendment later.

Item #7: Stormwater Fund enterprise.

Perez: I move leave to withdraw. We need to do that becuase we took it out of the expenditure side.

Passes, with one nay vote.

Perez moves Item 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Most of those are the special service tax districts.

They all pass unanimously.

Clark moves to adjourn.

Passes unanimously.

7:22: Meeting adjourned.