{news} Newsletter - Solid Waste Authority and my opposition to it

[allan brison]

Greens,
 
Here is news concerning my first major address before the Board of Alderman. The text of the address is below. It is contained in my ward 10 aldermanic newsletter.
 
Allan
----------------------------------
 
Newsletter - March 30, 2008
Allan Brison, Alderman, Ward 10
----------------------------------------------
 
Legislative Update This past Monday the Board of Alderman voted on the first two important ordinances of the 2008 legislative session: one which set a new pay range so that the City could offer a new Police Chief a salary of up to 160,000; and the other to create a new Trash Authority to take over the management of solid wastes. The new Authority would take out bonds to buy or lease the Transfer Station,  thus giving the City an infusion of funds to plug the hole in the current fiscal year's budget. The administration argued the the new Authority would better manage solid waste disposal and would take advantage of several cost-saving and revenue-generating possibilities. I opposed it on several grounds:  First, that all of the cost-saving and revenue-generating features could, and in fact would, be implemented under the present system. There was no need to create this authority to do these things. Second, that it was similar to the ploy done when the city sold off its trash incinerator a couple of years ago when the WPCA (Water Pollution Control Authority) was regionalized; also, seemingly to plug a short-term budget deficit.  I felt that it would be better for the city to simply float its own bonds that to have this Authority do it. Either way, the taxpayers bear the ultimate responsibility to repay the bonds and the debt service. Third, authorities take control away from the Board of Alderman, thus weakening the checks and balances built into the city charter. Fourth, the new authority is going to cost taxpayers $500,000 per year to operate.  The measure passed by 17-7 with several members absent or not voting. See below for the address that I delivered before the full board expressing my opposition. Also see the following links for media coverage: In last Wed.'s New Haven Register:http://www.nhregister.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDaily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.content=%2FMAIN_REP%2FArticle%2F2008%2F03%2F26%2F1792313 And in recent stories in the New Haven Independent:http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/03/rob_smuts_expla.phpandhttp://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/03/trash_plan_will.php------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here is my address as delivered before the Board of Aldermen on Monday, March 24: 
Solid Waste Transfer Station Agency Allan Brison (G-10)March 24, 2008
A few weeks ago I attended the finance committee meeting where the strategic plan for the creation of an Independent Authority for the City's solid waste system, what has become commonly known as a Trash Authority, was discussed.  As a Green Party Alder I was particularly interested in the plans for increasing recycling.  But I was also interested in the making sure that the City was not repeating the mistakes it made by selling off, through regionalization, the WPCA.  As I'm sure you are aware there were many negative outcomes of the sale of the WPCA.  First, the City's bond rating was lowered, making it more expensive for the City to borrow money.  The reason given for the lower bond rating was that the City was selling off its assets to close an annual budget deficit - an unsound fiscal practice. Second, the sale resulted in higher WPCA bills for New Haven residents as we are, in effect, financing the sewage separation projects in Hamden and East Haven.  Third, the new WPCA's aggressive mortgage foreclosure practices, and the City's inability to moderate these practices, has been in the news of late. 
And fourth, the City lost control of the use of its former assets, especially the sewage sludge incinerator, resulting in lower air quality for New Haven residents as more towns send their sewage to the New Haven incinerator.I've carefully examined the consultant's report prepared by Malcolm Pirnie on the Strategic Planning and Cost of Service Analysis for the Solid Waste System.  It appears to be an excellent analysis of the present costs of the Solid Waste system, with a detailed projection of costs and income for the next five years, and a rough guesstimate for the fifteen years after that.  However the report has left many questions unanswered about how creating an Independent Authority, by sale or by lease, would save the City money.  In fact, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say it hasn't answered that question at all.The report details several ways costs can potentially be cut for, or revenue generated by, the City's solid waste system.  Some of these suggestions require capital investments, some of which seem long overdue.  One idea, bringing a rail spur to New Haven to use for rail haul of trash, seems intriguing, but it is in a far more speculative stage, too early for a cost analysis.  The other suggestions include:*Upgrading weight scales at the Transfer Station.*Increasing recycling by 20%, which could save up to $100,000/yr.  *Using excess Transfer Station Capacity (@43%) by marketing it and by redirecting commercial waste to use it through enactment of a city ordinance.*Procuring new, more favorable, Transfer, Haul and Disposal contracts.  This could save the City $800,000/yr.In addition, the report posits that City can attain an additional 20% to 30% in savings from the collection operation, which accounts for half the City's solid waste budget, if it does the following:a)negotiates new collective bargaining agreements.b)implements manage competition(?)c)implements programs to increase recyclable materials participation and/ord)contracts out one or more of the collection services Here's my problem.  Some, perhaps all, of these proposals for increasing income and saving money may be both feasible and desirable.  But if they are, the report gives us no explanation of why the City can't implement these proposals without creating an Independent Trash Authority.  There may be an explanation.  But if there is, it is not contained in the Malcolm Pirnie report.  In fact the report says that additional administrative costs of the Independent Authority would add $500,000 a year to operating the trash service.  That's an annual half million dollar increase that someone will have to pay for. Yet, despite not being given an explanation of why it is necessary to create an Independent Trash Authority to achieve the cost savings outlined in the report, we are being asked to vote tonight to establish it. I think it is fair to say that it is premature for the Board of Aldermen to take this step.What the report does tell us is how the City can plug a hole in this year's budget by establishing this Trash Authority.  The plan is for the new Trash Authority to buy or lease the Transfer Station for $6 million.  It would also pay the City $2.8 million for the debt that the City owes for the Transfer Station, giving the City $8.8 million up front.  In addition, if the City sells the Independent Authority its collection equipment it will pay the City an additional $1.7 million, of which $1.2 million will go to paying off the debt associated with the collection system.  So the total payment to the City can be as high as $10.5 million.  That's a big budget deficit plug for New Haven.In order to raise the money to pay the City the new Trash Authority would issue revenue bonds.  In assessing the cost of issuing these bonds the report assumes, and I quote, “…the new authority would hold a rating similar to the City, and will be financed at an assumed interest rate of $5.5% over a 20 year period.”  This assumption may be reasonable, or unrealistic, depending on whom you talk to.  But what I want to know is this:  If the City can issue bonds at an assumed 5.5% interest rate, why does it need to go through the trouble of creating a new Trash Authority to do it?  I think this question points to the nub of the confusion over this Trash Authority report, and why the Board of Alders, and the public, is having so much trouble figuring out what the important questions are.  The Board of Aldermen are really being asked to decide on three separate issues tonight, and the three issues have been so entangled that it is hard to think clearly about them. Therefore I think we should go back and look at what the issues are.The first issue is how to do the City's trash collecting and recycling most effectively and economically, perhaps even profitably.  The question here is who is in the best position to restore effective management; take advantage of revenue opportunities arising from the expiration of state mandated transfer, haul and disposal contracts; negotiate better labor contracts; achieve full use of the transfer station's capacity; explore future rail haul options; and increase recycling.  Can the City do this best?  Or would a newly created Trash Authority be more effective and produce more revenue?  I would like to see a report that examines the pros and cons of both these options.  As I have said before, this report does not do this.The second issue is relevant only if it can be shown that an independent authority would be a better option for managing the trash and recycling operation.  Here the question is how would the new independent authority be structured.  Would it buy the Transfer Station, or lease it?  Once established, can the authority decide to regionalize itself, and if it does, what will be the effect on New Haven?  What control will the City have over the rates the independent authority charges the City?  What happens if the authority becomes insolvent?The third issue--and the one that seems to be behind the fast tracking of this complicated process--is whether we can use the sale of the Transfer Station and the creation of a Trash Authority to refinance part the City's debt and plug up the hole in the City's operating budget. And if we can, should we?  Is this the real issue we are here to discuss tonight?  If it is we need to talk about it directly.  When I ran for Alderman, I promised to try to bring transparency and accountability to the Board's financial decisions before they are made. In order to do this there are questions we need to have answered before we can responsibly vote on the ordinance before us today:  Is creating this independent authority the only way we can balance our budget this year?  What would be the advantage of creating this authority over the City issuing its own bonds?  What would be the disadvantage?  What are the liabilities?  If the Trash Authority gives us an infusion of money this year, then takes it back by charging New Haven higher trash fees in the coming years, are we gaining or losing?  How much could we gain or lose?  If there's a possibility, as the New Haven Register implies in last Wednesday's editorial, of long-term revenue from a well-run transfer station, wouldn't it be better if the revenue went into New Haven coffers?We so many unanswered questions, I don't see how anyone can vote for this proposal tonight.  I propose that we table the vote and send the proposal back to committee for public hearings where we can begin to get the answers we need before making a decision with so many long term consequences. 
Allan BrisonAlderman, Ward 10Green Party
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080330/84cfeab7/attachment.html>