‘Unfunded’ Mandates A Hot Button Issue
by Christine Stuart | Dec 3, 2009 6:28pm
(10) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Local Politics, State Capitol
In what was sometimes a heated discussion, municipal and state officials tried to tackle the issue of unfunded state mandates during a two-hour meeting Thursday.
But after municipal leaders spoke about all the cuts they already had made and brainstormed ways the state could offer them some relief, an argument over which policies would actually pass the legislature broke out between New Haven Mayor John DeStefano and Vernon Mayor Jason McCoy.
“We don’t have an idea problem,” DeStefano said. “We have a political problem.”
DeStefano suggested the group not waste its time on things like amending the state’s binding arbitration laws, because something like that won’t pass the Democrat-controlled General Assembly. Instead, DeStefano said the state should be helping municipalities by allowing them to raise their own revenue through local option taxes.
McCoy then suggested that the Senate Democrats who appointed DeStefano asked him to take binding arbitration off the table.
DeStefano said that was not the case.
“We are all partners,” Rell’s Budget Secretary Robert Genuario said. “The state has to be part of the solution and municipalities have to be part of the solution.”
DeStefano also took exception to Genuario’s comment that state and local officials are all partners.
“We’re not partners,” DeStefano said. “We follow the state’s rules.”
East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey said she thinks the elephant in the room is not who appointed whom, but the minimum budget requirement municipalities are required to follow under the state’s Education Cost Sharing grant.
Instead of requiring towns to spend 100 percent of increased ECS grants on education, the law allows towns to spend part of the aid increase on other things depending on the performance of its schools.
Currey also suggested the state could help towns by making the real estate conveyance tax permanent.
Even though the 12-member panel appointed by legislative leaders and the governor was asked to make recommendations on where the state should cut $84 million in municipal aid, Currey didn’t believe they should be advocating for any more cuts in municipal aid.
“We’re barely able to preserve the services our constituents enjoy,” Currey said.
Genuario said the issues the panel discussed Thursday have been discussed “for years and years and years.” And the more controversial ones are where all the money is, he said.
One of those issues is the amount of money the state pays its three biggest cities in in lieu of local taxes on state property - also known as PILOT money.
Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch said it’s difficult for him to deliver services in a city that’s 17-square miles, where the median income is $36,000 a year, and the state isn’t paying the full amount of taxes on the property it owns.
“It’s difficult to find ways we can cut more,” Finch said.
The 12-member panel will meet again next week at some point to discuss the issue of cuts in municipal funding.
(10) Comments
posted by: Streever | December 4, 2009 10:14am
Glad that the mayor was appointed to this, and good showing by him. Thanks for sticking up for our city & being direct.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | December 4, 2009 10:59am
King John needs to look in his own backyard before opening his mouth!!!
posted by: City Hall Watch | December 4, 2009 11:46am
I’ll be direct. DeStefano is right in one respect - New Haven is not a partner with the state or anybody else. He and the city are dependents. His entire professional life has been spent feeding at the public trough and advocating for higher taxes, and more money from “the state.” He is constantly and endlessly demanding the state build this or that; that the state provide funding for this program; that the state pay property taxes when we are nearly alone in demanding PILOTS from state taxpayers for universities, hospitals and government buildings.
Unlike Streever, I think this endless whining and bullying doesn’t represent the city well. It’s demeaning to the state, fellow municiple leaders and to us who live here. He acts the part of a spoiled brat who screams in the grocery store and is never satisfied. According to John, the state is always screwing poor little New Haven. As the alders found out when they called on Jim Amann last year, the evil penny pinching state gave New Haven billions of dollars. What do we do besides drive to Hartford with our hand out?
Questions for the mayor:
1. What about a $7 billion deficit don’t you understand? The legislature passed a fake budget that kicked this can down the road last year. Now it’s more real than ever.
2.When was the last time you actually created a budget from a ZERO basis and cost/results justified every expenditure in your budget?
3. Why will a reduction in state mandates not yield cost savings to New Haven?
4. Why won’t a reduction in the MBR for school funding save you money? Afterall you’ve used that specious arguement to justify a bloated, unaccountable and untouchable school budget for years.
5. Why do we need a million dollar plus budget in the mayor’s office? If you are not going to actually run any department, can’t we get by with one qualified administrator?
6. When will you embrace technology and use it not only make life here more bearable, but also use it to drive down the FTE needs of the city?
7. Please visit or call on cities run by Democrats who are seasoned executives and who also know what they’re doing. They have great ideas and funding/operational expertise that is not breaking either the state or their citizens. You spent all that money in Highpoint two years ago to study policing. This is even more important.
posted by: I love chee-zits | December 4, 2009 12:08pm
Well said City Hall Watch.
DeStefano is a bully and crybaby. Always has been, always will be. New Haven would be a dump without Yale and the sooner he recognizes that the better.
posted by: streever | December 4, 2009 1:53pm
CHW:
I’ve agreed with you in the past—re: the mayor’s demeanor in all of this—but think he’s really stepped it up. I agree that historically he’s been too personal/too angry and I think it’s alienated others, but I believe he’s chosen a suitable tone & demeanor this time & am grateful for the work he’s doing.
posted by: jon pelto | December 5, 2009 10:33am
Would somone please list 10 (or even 5) of the unfunded mandates they want repealed.
For 30 years I’ve heard people (mostly Republicans and some town officials) complain about unfunded mandates. Inadequate state funding is a major problem because it unfairly shifts the burden to local property taxes. It is fair and appropriate to discuss te lack of enough state aid to cities and towns. But what many of these people say is - REPEAL - the unfunded mandate and I’m sure many of us would support repealing mad mandates - so would someone who supports repealing mandates please list - even 5 - mandates they want repealed. There are lots of requirements on cities and towns - just list five or ten that you want the towns not to have to do.
posted by: Bill Finch | December 5, 2009 10:57am
Not trying to start an arguement, really. We all know that the 3 largest CT cities have unique revenue and expenditure problems. But, for the sake of comparison, can we all list governments whos budgets are millions of dollars lower in spending this year than last year. Start with Bpt’s which is millions less than last year. Then let’s look at what those on the list have done and share best practices.
posted by: Jeff | December 6, 2009 11:03am
To the person who asked about naming 5 or 10 mandates, The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities Lists dozens and dozens here:
http://www.ccm-ct.org/advocacy/2008-2009/020609-relief.pdf
posted by: Jeff | December 6, 2009 11:06am
The CCM (Conn COnference of Municipalities) lists dozens of mandates here:
http://www.ccm-ct.org/advocacy/2008-2009/020609-relief.pdf
posted by: jonpelto | December 6, 2009 1:23pm
Jeff, thanks for the link. I realize there are lots of mandates out there - what I was looking for was an elected official who would actually say - on the record - which mandates they want to repeal. It is very easy to say - repeal unfunded mandates but elected officials should be specific - which ones do they specifically want repealed so we can then follow up and ask them more about why they want that specific program eliminated.
