Aldermen OK $497M Budget; Taxes Rise 7.7%

by Thomas MacMillan | May 29, 2013 8:27 am

(45) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Budget

With no debate and no amendments, the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously Tuesday night to approve a budget that will raise taxes by 3 mills. The vote came at a special budget meeting in the Aldermanic Chamber in City Hall Tuesday evening. The new $497,454,609 budget, which takes effect on July 1, will increase spending by 2.3 percent. The budget includes a property tax increase of 3 mills, bringing the rate up to 41.88 mills. That means someone with a home valued at $200,000 (assessed value, not market value) will see his or her tax bill go up by $604 next year; and the home will have an annual tax bill of $8,378. The budget that passed was trimmed down from the $503 million budget proposed by Mayor John DeStefano in March. Aldermen found some savings in attrition cuts and the state came through with more funding for New Haven than expected. “In light of dramatic state revenue cuts I think that, on balance, this is a prudent budget that preserves core city services,” said DeStefano in a press release. “While it is never ideal to have to raise taxes, it is vital for the health and the future of New Haven to preserve and continue development of three essential areas: education and School Change, public safety and economic growth.” The average homeowner will see taxes go up by about $25 a month, according to the mayor’s office. DeStefano said the budget “preserves core city services and functions such as School Change, senior centers, parks, and libraries”; adds 40 new walking beats around town; and “addresses the decline in staffing of the fire department” by adding 80 new firefighters. The budget passed without dissent Tuesday evening, 28 to zero. Two aldermen, Delphine Clyburn and Carlton Staggers, were absent. Hill Alderwoman Andrea Jackson-Brooks, chair of the Finance Committee, said it was one of the smoothest budget votes she can remember. She attributed the lack of debate to a thorough deliberative process in committee, which included “a lot of open dialogue.” Even aldermen who had tried unsuccessfully to make deeper budget cuts in committee voted for the budget in the end. East Rock Aldermen Jessica Holmes and Justin Elicker put forward an amendment in committee that would have blocked a $3 million increase in the Board of Ed budget. They didn’t try to again on Tuesday to make such an amendment. “I can count votes, and the votes weren’t there,” said Elicker, who’s one of seven candidates for mayor. He said he’s “disappointed” with the budget. “Ultimately, the city’s fiscal problems can’t be solved by the Board of Aldermen,” Elicker said. The administration is not transparent when it comes to providing information about how money is spent, Elicker said. “This tax increase is going to be really hard for people in New Haven,” said Holmes. She said it “became clear” in the committee process how important the role of the mayor is in budgeting. “We have a revenue problem,” she said. She said she hopes that after DeStefano retires at the end of the year, the next mayor will work with Yale and non-profits and the state to bring in more revenue to the city. Reggie Mayo (at left in photo, conferring with Assistant Superintendent Garth Harries), superintendent of schools, said he was “ecstatic” about the vote. Mayo won a $3 million increase he requested to the “city contribution” towards education, city taxpayer dollars that go directly to the school board, bringing that total to $24.6 million. The budget includes a $177.2 million “general fund” of state and city tax dollars that go towards education. The $3 million increase is the largest in years: The general fund rose $1.2 million in the prior four years. Mayo said he wasn’t expecting a unanimous vote. “Everybody stood up for the kids tonight,” he said. “The Board of Aldermen showed a lot of courage tonight.” Even with the $3 million increase, the school district will still have to make $9.4 million in cuts, including eliminating 55 teaching positions, 10 paraprofessional jobs, five clerical/security jobs, and six administrative positions, according to schools Chief Operating Officer Will Clark. Clark has said the district plans to make those cuts through attrition, not through layoffs.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on May 28, 2013 9:52pm To those who say the BOA is control by the unions.How come the old guard who were not part of the union did not vote this down.

posted by: Anderson Scooper on May 28, 2013 10:36pm Already outrageous property taxes get hiked by 7.75% and it merits nothing more than the sidebar?

posted by: beyonddiscussion on May 29, 2013 12:08am It’s a critical moment for New Haven. Even if city taxpayers (through property tax) and state taxpayers (through PILOT payments) wanted to continue to subsidize Yale, they just can’t anymore. Their backs are broken. Yale’s paying its fair share is a matter of New Haven’s survival.

posted by: Noteworthy on May 29, 2013 3:30am It is really twisted to say that taking money away from a child’s family is standing up for children. This increase will drive rents higher and lower property values. When family incomes are flat and dropping, city spending increases by 5 times the inflation rate. And the tired old excuse is state funding. It’s as predictable as it is pathologically untrue. As for this being the smoothest budget process, it is because after 20 years of doing the same thing, raising spending, borrowing and property taxes, the BOA should have it down by now as most certainly does DeStefano. The public knows it too which is why so few turned out at any of the public hearings. With every increase in spending and taxes, the light of life in New Haven dims. Out of nearly $500 million - the found nothing to cut, no discussion, no amendments, nothing. All cooked in advance and served up for the public. It is doubtful that very many of the aldermen even understand or read the budget. The only bright spot is knowing this is DeStefano/Mayo’s last budget. What we need is fresh eyes on old problems, somebody with an eye to detail and the heart of the people he serves because this budget certainly doesn’t reflect it.

posted by: alexey on May 29, 2013 6:34am I also don’t understand why the headline isn’t: City Hikes Taxes 7.7% Talking about the mill rate and average dollar amount is fine, but the best way to describe a change in taxes or spending is by percentage. Perhaps we do have a “revenue problem,” as one alderman suggests. May I be so bold as to suggest we also may have a “spending problem?”

posted by: SaveOurCity on May 29, 2013 8:23am a little disappointing that some alders didn’t stand up for what’s right…. a lot disappointing that NHI doesn’t highlight the 7.7% annual increase…. where others (businesses and governments) are starting to get serious about cutting, this city (especially Johnny D and Mayo) continue their reckless spending. We can’t get rid of these clowns fast enough.

posted by: robn on May 29, 2013 8:34am I think (but I’m not sure) that the city charter is set ups such that if the BOA repeatedly rejects the mayors budget, it takes effect anyway (or maybe just the BOE part because they are independent by state law). Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

posted by: Truth Avenger on May 29, 2013 9:10am Looking to see who voted to slam the tax payers yet again. Urge voters to vote out these tax-and-spend politicos. Is there not one courageous voice who will say “enough-is- enough” and make it stick?

posted by: DrJay on May 29, 2013 9:31am This is a State problem. We should not be financing our cities by local property taxes. Our suburban neighbors don’t pay their fair share. We should have a county government that is responsible for many services, financed by income tax.

The city just doesn’t have the tax base to cope.

Our State legislators have been ineffective in Hartford for as long as I can remember.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on May 29, 2013 9:45am posted by: robn on May 29, 2013 8:34am I think (but I’m not sure) that the city charter is set ups such that if the BOA repeatedly rejects the mayors budget, it takes effect anyway (or maybe just the BOE part because they are independent by state law). Someone correct me if I’m wrong. Hey robin how come the non union BOA voted for this bill. posted by: Truth Avenger on May 29, 2013 9:10am Looking to see who voted to slam the tax payers yet again. Urge voters to vote out these tax-and-spend politicos. Is there not one courageous voice who will say “enough-is- enough” and make it stick? The only way to stop this is proportional representation and term limts.

posted by: anonymous on May 29, 2013 9:47am If you think this year’s tax increase is bad wait until you see next year and the year after. Even bigger increases will hit the suburbs. Hope the City will put in better bus service and bike lanes, and stop giving away pedestrian streets to Yale for pennies on the dollar, because a lot of people are going to be selling their cars. (In addition to the majority who already don’t have them)

posted by: Curious on May 29, 2013 10:20am I really love this city, and rent now, and would love to buy a home here in a few years. However, it just makes no financial sense. I’m not going to pay Hamden or North Haven-equivalent taxes to live in a city with terrible schools and more crime. I’d rather live over the border and actually get my money’s worth. New Haven, wake up.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on May 29, 2013 11:13am Tax hike.And you wonder wht city workers leave New Haven.Blame yourself.You keep voting them in.

posted by: TheMadcap on May 29, 2013 11:28am Everyone of course, including in comments, will never, ever, ever, raise taxes because it’s super, super wrong. That is until they’re actually faced with a budget and its potential consequences. Governing is easy until you have to do it.

posted by: WestvilleAdvocate on May 29, 2013 11:41am Shame on our Aldermen and women. We, homeowners, and ultimately renters (as it just gets passed along), cannot afford anymore of this. When our local non-profits get $600 less in donations from my household this year it is because of this increase. Disgraceful.

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on May 29, 2013 11:52am If DeStefano, DeMayo, and all the other top school administrators didn’t make $110,000-$276,000 EACH, we wouldn’t have this issue. This is a small city, and it is not run to high enough standards. But their pay is in line with the Boston city and school system, which serves almost 20 times the population of New Haven. This increase is not acceptable. Not at all.

posted by: UNH Grad on May 29, 2013 12:00pm @DrJay, In what world is the local budget a STATE problem? The state subsidizes almost every governmental function in the City of New Haven. Where do you think that money comes from? Those wealthy suburbs that you claim don’t pay their “fair share.” The idea that the tax money of suburban families somehow belongs to the City of New Haven sounds an awful lot like taxation without representation to me. The City of New Haven only has a revenue problem in that they don’t support policies that promote businesses and home-ownership within the city. Contrary to the popular narrative, this is NOT a safe place to live as compared to the rest of the region, nor does anyone want to pay the taxes to support massive social service programs benefiting illegal immigrants, etc. who do not pay any of their income into the system (and please, don’t try to tell me that sales tax is comparable to state income tax, I’ve laughed enough for the day.) They also have a terribly politicized zoning approval system that seems, if the articles in the NHI are to be believed, to base decisions on social agendas as opposed to what’s best for the economic development of the city. In short, you reap what you sew. If, through regulation and liberal social policies, you make a place unfriendly for business owners and unsafe for wealthier residents, you are never going to attract those groups into the city and therefore never be able to soften the tax burden on middle and lower class residents.

posted by: phoo on May 29, 2013 12:37pm jessica holmes says we have a revenue problem,(that means people aren’t taxed enough), and hopes the next mayor can work to bring in more revenue. then they vote to raise taxes on the people that are already here, with the hope that it will attract more businesses and people to flood into the city to pay more taxes. yay! where do i sign up. makes perfect sense to me.

posted by: robn on May 29, 2013 12:39pm UNHGRAD, What DRJAY is indicating is that, unlike surrounding towns, New Haven’s infrastructure must accommodate two of the regions largest employers (mainly out of town employees) and we may not tax their property. A question I’ve lately been interested in is, if one tallied the monetary assistance given by the state to NH for the school construction program, (in excess of the historical per capita assistance other towns have gotten), does this counterbalance the historic underfunding of PILOT payments? Would be an interesting analysis for the NHI if they did that srot of thing.

posted by: TheMadcap on May 29, 2013 1:07pm Illegal immigrants overwhelmingly work under fake SS numbers, meaning they have to pay all the taxes you pay on your paycheck, and pay the same property taxes through rent just like everyone else here does, so can we just knock it off with the “illegal immigrants sucking up our money” meme. New Haven is actually attracting unsubsidized large scale commercial investment to its downtown area, something a good deal of cities can’t say. Truly failed policies.

posted by: darnell on May 29, 2013 2:02pm robn: The BOA doesn’t reject the mayor’s budget, they either pass it as is, amend it, or substitute another budget. They must pass a budget by the beginning of June, or the mayor’s proposed budget is automatically adopted. That being said, shame on the BOA for increasing taxes during a recession. taxpyers should ask themselves, have their paychecks increased by 7%?

posted by: getyourfactstraight on May 29, 2013 2:13pm The one thing everyone has to remember is when you vote against the budget you are voting against everything in it…..even the good stuff. Symbolically one could do that ofcourse.

I just wish the finance committee would have accepted some of the amendments offered that would have saved some money. Can a point be made to offer up more amendments at the actual vote on the budget by the full BOA knowing it doesn’t stand a chance? Mixed feelings on that one. We just need a new mayor who really will offer up a budget that is transparent, honest and allows the aldermen to look at it squarely and fairly. I’m choking here…...sigh.

posted by: BetweenTwoRocks Everybody wants stuff, nobody wants to pay for it. We want bike lanes and better policing and more development and more public services. But if we raise taxes? Holy cow. If you want stuff, you gotta pay for it. Simple. You want to shut down schools and after school programs and stop taking care of the parks? Great, then we can lower taxes. Problem solved.

posted by: Curious on May 29, 2013 2:57pm Josh, that is an oversimplified statement of the problem. Are you saying there is NO waste in the city budget at all? That the City of New Haven has somehow managed to make a perfect budget? Out of all governments, we somehow got it right? There is always fat to trim. By many accounts, we have a bloated education administration, and a bloated fire department. Just two examples of many, but those jobs are protected by people who gin up votes come election time.

posted by: HhE on May 29, 2013 4:49pm UNH Grad, I used to live in Greenwich. Much of New Haven’s problems are caused the the state dumping statewide problems on its poor cities. Prisoners are released in the cities, sober houses are located here, and all that. Which is great if you live in one of the well to do towns. Minimal problems, minimal taxes, and plenty of good services like schools, parks, and the lot. Put it another way, New Haven’s problem is not Yale being locted here, it is that New Haven is located in Connecticut.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on May 29, 2013 5:18pm Again were are the union haters who keep saying the union is in control.Take a look at the roll call on who voted for this.Proportional Representation could have stop this.

posted by: Brian L. Jenkins on May 29, 2013 5:30pm This is a travesty! No dissent? These Alderman are saying to the taxpayers that they are not paying enough and therefore they should be paying much more. Why? You folk are not sent there to make easy decisions when it comes to the livelihood of your constituents. Voting to raise taxes is always easy. Learn how to hold the line on raising taxes and out of control spending. When I left office in 2003 the budget was somewhere in the neighborhood of $331,000…and I voted NO! It’s now almost a half of a billion dollars and you’re voting yes. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Mr. Elicker, make sure you mention to the voters you come into contact with that you voted to raise their taxes when you go door knocking. “This tax increase is going to be really hard for people in New Haven,” said Holmes.” Oh really? So why did you support the hardship? Allow me to reiterate for the last time. There isn’t a revenue problem in the city of New Haven. There is a spending problem in the city of New Haven. If public officials would refrain from thinking that they were celebrities, then maybe the taxpayers would get good representation. Voters don’t want your autograph, they want your accountability. Finally, if you can’t help your constituents, than why are you running for re-election?

posted by: Dwightstreeter on May 29, 2013 5:37pm Why do we continue to burden local real estate owners with the high costs of education when the children educated locally will often live elsewhere and contribute to some other community? Education is and should be a high priority, but we have pushed homeowners to the breaking point and not one candidate for mayor has proposed any solutions to the biggest item in the budget in most towns and certainly in New Haven. Perhaps a return to neighborhood schools and less busing would be a start. Perhaps we should take a national view of education, the way we do with the military or infrastructure or other priorities and shift the burden from the local areas to the national budget. We cannot continue to pile on costs on homeowners while wealthy “non-profits” like Yale and the Hospital get a pass. It’s time to examine all options and assumptions before the system collapses.

posted by: darnell on May 29, 2013 5:44pm 3/5ths I don’t understand your last cooment, everyone on the BOA voted for it, with the exception of my alderman, who didn’t even show up.

posted by: 1483mmm on May 29, 2013 10:14pm To Our Elected Officials,

You are making it harder and harder for us to live here. You are making it harder and harder for us to encourage our children to stay here.

posted by: Noteworthy on May 30, 2013 9:52am Brian Jenkins: Loved your commentary on the BOA raising taxes by 8% - and the wholesale endorsement of it by every BOA member present. It is a sad and depressing commentary. That said, what do you think Toni Harp has done for the last 20 years at the state level? The budget in 1992 was $7.9 billion - today, it is more than $22 billion while the population growth has only grown by 300K people. Taxes have grown along with the spending including the history making tax hike that continues to this day, enacted at the height of the economic downturn. And you can expect Mini-me Fernandez to do the exact same thing. It’s good to challenge Elicker - challenge them all.

posted by: SteveOnAnderson on May 30, 2013 10:22am When you live in a Company Town, and the Company happens to be tax-exempt, the burden is going to fall on the people. This is especially true in what the Company calls its “Shuttle Zone” (as opposed to what the Company calls the “Scatter Zone”). People, it is not our elected officials that are making the city unaffordable, it is the Yale Corporation. As demonstrated by the recent street sale, the power relationship is so one-sided that the representatives of the Yale Corporation can simply threaten to remove its voluntary payment and elected representatives will give Yale Corp. what it wants. But Yale’s expansion & development in the city drives up property values, and those taxes have to be paid for by someone. Right now, Yale Corp. is manipulating its educational mission to serve as a front for generating billions of tax-free dollars. The sound of one shoe is the incredible culture Yale University (not Yale Corp.) contributes to New Haven through its workers, scholars, students, artists, concerts, film screenings, etc.. But you do not have to wait for the other shoe to drop—the sound of that shoe is the taxes you pay to subsidize Yale Corp.‘s non-profit status. I don’t want Yale Corp. to be responsible for “improving the city.” I want Yale Corp. to contractually tie its multi-billion dollar growth to its payment to the city. Only by sitting at the table as equals and negotiating a contract can we be free of the dependency inherent in the “voluntary” nature of Yale Corp.‘s financial relationship to New Haven.

posted by: Truth Avenger on May 30, 2013 11:21am Motion to repeal the tax hike. I’m trying to put a kid through college- dang it!

posted by: TheMadcap on May 30, 2013 11:23am @Noteworthy Putting forward sheer numbers like that is inane. Might as well say in 1914 the state budget was $X. The budget is $22 billion currently with gross state production of around $240 billion. In 1991 the state budget was around $8 billion out of a a GSP of around $103 billion. If anything, making that point about the budget has shown that over the past 20 years, the state has done a rather good job at controlling the rate of spending relative to overall economy size, rising from 7.8% to 9.1%, not bad given the expanded role the state has had to take in social services as federal programs were cut back, particularly with Medicaid(and formerly Charter Oak)

posted by: FacChec on May 30, 2013 1:12pm “Ultimately, the city’s fiscal problems can’t be solved by the Board of Aldermen,” Elicker said. This could not be more true. Neither the Board of Aldermen or the finance committee is remotely qualified to read and assess two budget documents totalling over 500 pages each of redundancy and hidden money within line items. The board believes it has no authority over line items within the BOE budget, which is 2/3 of the entire budget. That is patently false. If the BOE hides away millions in line items and the board believes it cannot adjust line items, then clearly the temptation is to hide money in line item is tantamount. Much of the negotiations are completed at the finance committee level, there under Perez, as it had been for years under Goldfield, it remains business as usual. “The way we have always done it”. Both boards of alders voted for the budget as if was a chop liver sandwich. At the committee level both Elicker and Holmes made a half hearted attempts to reduce the BOE by 3 million dollars. After a rebuttal from Perez, the two went away quietly offering no other creditable attempt to propose anything. In this story Holmes is quoted saying, “This tax increase is going to be really hard for people in New Haven,”

yes it will be difficult for residents in New Haven, particularly those in East Rock West-ville and the East shore, who will pay double digit tax increases over last years triple digit assessments. Yet, none of the representative alders in the affected areas offering comment as to the plight of their constituents, before voting yes. Therefore, you expect this process to continue so long as you, the taxpayers, is more comfortable sitting at home on your computer complaining, rather than registering your complaint at the committee hearings.

posted by: Excit3d on May 30, 2013 1:34pm Am I the only one who feels that paying taxes is part of being a part of a community and the services that we expect from the city are not free?

posted by: Noteworthy on May 30, 2013 2:02pm Madcap: You can always twist the numbers. Taxes and state spending are not driven by Gross State Production. That’s like saying, oh, our production went up therefore, we should tax more. It’s all spending, spending, spending, just like New Haven. There’s always something new to spend money on, to borrow against and they do. Therefore you have the highest taxed state in the nation, and among the highest taxed cities too. Congratulations. Here’s to more Gross City Production.

posted by: Dwightstreeter on May 30, 2013 2:42pm To SteveOnAnderson:

Yale is reportedly the 4th wealthiest corporation on the planet, but after hearing that on NPR, I have not been able to verify it.

Regardless, tax exempt status for so-called non-profits is something we can no longer afford.

YNHH pays its CEO millions even as it pays staffers as little as possible.

In my next life I want to come back as an all cash business or a hugely successful non-profit.

We need to re-think the tax system at every level because the middle class has been clobbered, even as corporations design a tax system that works for them, but not us.

posted by: Bill Saunders on May 30, 2013 4:23pm Dwightstreeter, I believe this super-exemption is over 100 years old, and has outlived it’s intent when applied to YALE. The other three universities that get the benefit of this tax-break are Connecticut College, Wesleyan and Trinity. It is pretty clear to see that YALE has leveraged this exemption into tons of personal play money at the taxpayers expense. Kill the Exemption. Reminds of that old Sesame Street ditty, “One of these things is not like the other”. There is an old video of COOKIE MONSTER singing it on youtube, but this site won’t let me post the link.

posted by: SteveOnAnderson on May 30, 2013 4:29pm Dwightstreeter, Amen. When David Swensen took charge of the Yale endowment and created the “Yale Model,” Yale University ceased to be a non-profit institution and became a financial one. I am not attacking Yale for that shift (even if I do have many problems with it), but do believe that because Yale is a financial institution, its economic relationship with the city has to be reconsidered. Just take a look at the graph on the second page of Yale’s 2011 Endowment Report: http://investments.yale.edu/images/documents/Yale_Endowment_11.pdf (Note: students, community groups, and the Yale unions pushed Yale to divest from a private prison company in 2006.) There appears to be a rich literature on taxing the endowments of financialized non-profit higher education institutions. Unfortunately, this is not my field, and I am trying to squeeze in all the knowledge I can gather between the family, professional, and community engagements that make up my life. However, this paper from last year points to several studies on taxing financialized non-profit university endowments or otherwise holding them economically responsible:

http://lawreview.byu.edu/articles/1360684178_6.willie.fin.pdf. It would be good to have some forum to discuss these studies as a community and push for a different relationship between Yale & the city under the new New Haven mayoral & Yale presidential regimes.

posted by: Dwightstreeter on May 30, 2013 4:55pm to Bill Saunders and SteveOnAnderson: New Haven is top heavy with faux non-profits and thus the burden on the middle class.

Some say New Haven would be Bridgeport without Yale, but Bridgeport’s economy is actually growing more than New Haven’s.

Richard Wolfe, the economist, did a study years ago establishing how Yale is subsidized by the community rather than the reverse. I have not read it, but he stands by its conclusions.

I"m told that tax exemptions come from the State and could be repealed. Of course that assumes you can beat the Yale lobbyists and alums who will scream in pain.

Let them check out the new School of Money, I mean Management, the behemoth ensconced in East Rock. If ever a building proclaimed its dominance over its neighbors, this one speaks loudly.

I’m ok with a cut off point where either assets or income or a combination of both basically make an org. ineligible for tax exempt status. The church running a soup kitchen performs a socially valuable service. A university running a real estate empire does not. Nor does a hospital that pays its CEO millions.

But the inmates are running the asylum and the “haves” are writing the tax laws.

Still, there is a reality and it is that we cannot continue to subsidize wealthy “non-profits”.

I have yet to hear one candidate discuss the current system of taxation or suggest alternatives other than more development. There is no mention of good or bad development; just development.

posted by: SaveOurCity on May 30, 2013 5:26pm are there really people who can say with a straight face that State spending is reasonable? Since 1970, CT population has increased 20%, CT per capita income has increased 97%, net appropriations (thus taxes) have increased 265%....business as usual.

posted by: TheMadcap on May 30, 2013 5:30pm Noteworthy: No, you can’t twist those numbers. Spending and taxation as a percent of GDP/GSP is essentially the most accurate measure of spending. Using your logic, if I was taxed 25% of my income in 1990, and 15% in 2013, I’m actually paying more in taxes in 2013 because the absolute number will be almost invariably be higher since median income in the state has doubled since then.

posted by: robn on May 30, 2013 5:51pm THEMADCAP, Great point but not necessarily indicative of Joe six packs tax burden. I would guess much of the GSP growth in this period is probably attributable to the growth of hedge funds in CT and ill bet that much of this income is federally taxed at lower rates than normal income. I’m pretty sure CT tax code follows the federal govt in this respect but I’m not sure.

So in other words the Tax/Income ratio has changed differently for different economic levels.