THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

Hits: 0

 

 

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. April 14, 2009: The Board of Education announced at its regular meeting  Monday evening that school district labor negotiations with the White Plains Teachers Association, after three mediation sessions with a New York State Public Employee Relations Board appointed mediator had been “unsuccessful,” would now move to a “fact-finding” phase. Peter Bassano, a member of the Board Finance Committee said the salary increase in a new contract was the lone remaining issue. Privately, he told WPCNR the Teachers’ union was “out of touch” with economic conditions in the city.

 

 

Peter Bassano of the Board of Education, said that another  state-appointed mediator would be appointed to meet with the two groups, which would present their positions and assemble “facts,” supporting their respective positions.

The mediator then recommends a settlement. The recommended settlement and both sides’ facts  would be made public. The mediator-recommended settlement, would be non-binding, and the school board and the district would have to consider it or reject.

 

Bassano told WPCNR that the major block is the amount of salary increase. He said that the step increases based on years of serviceand academic degrees have been agreed upon,  the amount of raises across the salary schedule is the roadblock.

 

Bassano: 2 to 3% step increases received this year. Administrators Agree to Freeze.

 

Bassano reported that all teachers this year, working without a contract, have received their step increases based on academicdegree progress and longevity, equal to 2 to 3% of salary, and in dispute is any additional merit increases.

 

Bassano said, “The teachers union is out touch with the economics of the City of White Plains and its community.”

 

Bassano also told WPCNR that the Assistant Superintendents (in the Superintendent of  Schools “cabinet”) and  the Assistant Superintendents’staffs and management personnel and support staff had all agreed to freeze their salaries in the 09-10 year in the district. The freeze on wages comes after a substantial series of salary increases in the current school year budget.

 

 

Teacher Union Head Says Teachers Not Consulted

 

 

Bassano’s remarks, made as part of his report on the BOE Finance Committee, came at the close of the business meeting,  after White Plains Teachers Association President, Kerry Broderick had taken the podium during the public comment session to denounce the district for not consulting the teachers on where layoffs (of teacher personnel) would take place.

 

Broderick said WPTA and CSEA members were never brought to the table to discuss the 20 teacher firings, 1 administrator and 24 assistant cuts. “They treated us as an afterthought,” she said. She accused the district of “doing a fine job of protecting (their) pet projects, and not consulting with who it affects (teachers) in school classrooms.”

 

WPCNR asked Mr. Bassano if it was true teacher cuts were made without consulting teaching staff.

 

Bassano commented, “I don’t know for sure, but I would want decisions about programmatical changes made based on an objective and data driven evaluation of the program by the administration.  This is not a real issue because there were few program cuts.”

 

Bassano said layoffs were made “solely pursuant to union guidelines in the collective bargaining agreement: They are layoff based on seniority: Last in – first out. No regard for performance or effectiveness in the classroom.”

 

Mr. Bassano said the district had offered to work with the teachers to provide incentivized  retirement, “If we got enough takers, it would have saved jobs, put cash in the pockets of some retirees and saved the district considerable money over the next few years. The offer has been on the table for months.”

 

Bassano told WPCNR the incentivized retirement offer was withdrawn in March when negotiations were stymied: “We asked to sever incentivized retirement from the salary negotiations and move forward with retirement incentives. The union refused, choosing to keep this as a bargaining chip. This prevented the saving of teaching jobs and the saving of money for the district.”

 

Bassano said Broderick misstated the one Administrator elimination, pointing out that the position of Athletic Director was eliminated by merging Athletic Director and Physical Education/Health Director.

Hits: 0

 

 

WPCNR THE POWER NEWS . By John F. Bailey. April 13, 2009:  The New York State Department of Budget has not been able to respond as of late this afternoon for a clarification on appropriations law S59B and A159, which contain the legislation enacting a $283 Million assessment on Consolidated Edison revenues this year, and assessments on all utilities in the state except telephone utilities.

 

Reading of the bill indicates to WPCNR that the assessment injecting new funding into the Public Service Commssion is 1%, and an additional  1% into the general fund. The $283 Million assessment on Con Ed and 1% – on all utilities across the state, with the exception of telephone companies is contained on pages 55 to 59 of the law.

 

 

Assemblyman George Latimer of Harrison told WPCNR he voted against the bill in which the utility assessment was contained. Latimer said that there was no “breakout” provided to legislatorsnof what Westchester gas and electric customers would pay in additions to their bill as a result of the new assessment charge. Latimer told WPCNR he voted against the bill because the charge “is not based on (customer’s) ability to pay and not pro rated on their ability to pay.”

 

The law amends Article 18-a of the aising the portion of the legislation funding the Public Service Commission as follows: “The total amount which may be charged to any public utility company under authority of this subdivision for any state fiscal year shall not exceed one per centum of such public utility company’s gross operating revenues derived  from intrastate utility operations in the last preceding calendar year.”

 

The legislation, in addition, amends Article18-a with an additional 1%charge, to wit:

 

“The temporary state energy and utility service conservation assessment shall be equal to two percentum of the utility operations in the last preceding calendar year, minus the amount, if any, that such utility entity is assessed pursuant to subdivisions one and two of this section (the public service commission funding) for the corresponding state fiscal year period.”

 

Latimerdescribed the text of the legislation as “quite dense.”

 

The complete legislation in all its “density” can be read on the New York Senate website, if you go to section “NN”, and read pages 55 to 59 on the following URL:

Hits: 0

 

WPCNR THE POWER NEWS By John F. Bailey April 10, 2009. Consolidated Edison revealed to The  CitizeNetReporter this week that the state legislature voted to increase Con Ed’s Assessment to $283 Million  in 2009-10, which will raise Westchester and NYC area residents utility bills an as-yet-unspecified amount in a few scant months. The assessment must be paid this year.

 

The state assessment is a straight cash payment decreed in the new state budget. Con Ed  is faced with an increase of 857% up from $33 Million the state charged Con Edison this year.The assessment increase affects all utilities’ intra (within) state revenues across the state and pours billions into the state General Fund for unspecified use “related to energy.”

The Con Edision assessment  will raise all Westchester and metropolitan area customers’electric and gas bills an as-yet undetermined amount in your Con Ed or Electric Supply Company bills  this year.

 

 How the charge will be applied will be considered by the New York State Public Service Commission April 21 in Albany at a hearing which may be viewed on the internet at the Public Service Commission website at   http://www.dps.state.ny.us/webcast_sessions.htm

 

The “secret” assessment Revises Article18-A of Public Utilities Law, In S59B, A59 Bills.

 

 The Assessment is a new charge Con Ed customers will be facing  in addition to a possible decision to  increase the Consolidated Edison “Delivery Charge” that could increase that charge on your utility bill approximately 15%, according to Consolidated Edison’s filing and preliminary PSC findings, Jim Denn of the Public Services Commission Press Office confirmed to WPCNR.

 

Con Edison asked last year for a 15% increase in the Delivery Charge, or cost of delivering electricity and gas to their customers, a year later they have asked to increase that original $654 Million request to $819Million in the first year of the increase. The Public Service Commission Legal Judges have recommended a $632 Million increase, slightly less than 15%. On April 21, the Public Service Commission will attempt to split the difference. 

 

A 20% increase in the Delivery Charge  for example, in the current White Plains electric bill where the kilowatt hour electric charge is 7.55 cents, would increase the Delivery Charge for White Plainsians to 9 cents per kwh. On usage of 648 kilowatt hours in a month this would increase your delivery charge to$58.32 this month as opposed to $48.90 – a $10 increase on a light electric month, possibly considerably more in high use summer months.

 

Legislature Changes Up the Utilitity Assessment — Pours Part into General Fund

 

Last year  the state assessment on utilities throughout the state  previously had consisted of  1/3 of 1% of intra (within) state revenues. In the new state budget of 2009-2010 passed with much fanfare by the Governor, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Leader Malcolm Smith last week, that assessment, formerly simply a revenue raiser to  support the Public ServiceCommission has been divided into two parts, according Public Service Commission spokesperson, Jim Denn, speaking exclusively to WPCNR Thursday afternoon.

 

The Bill, A00159, which included the 857% assessment increase, was passed in the Assembly and passed in the Senate, as S59B. Westchester Assemblypersons Adam Bradley,Richard Brodski, Sandy  Galef and Mike Spano voted for the bill. Only Assemblyman George Latimer voted against it according to the New York Assembly website.

 

Mr. Denn said Part 1 of the Assessment will charge up to 1% of a NYS utility intrastate revenues “for sercices that would go to operation of the Public Service Commission and other related entities.”

 

Part 2 funnels “another 1% (of  a utility’s intra “within” state  revenues) to the state general fund for energy-related purposes.” Mr. Denn could not define “energy-related purposes.”

 

 

Denn said the PSC will determine how the new $283Million Con Ed assessment will be applied to future 2009 consumer bills in the April 21 hearing. When the assessment would be added, and what increment it would add to the customer bill has not been determined.

 

Split between Con Edison and ESCO customers.

 

Bob McGee, spokesperson for Consolidated Edison told WPCNR Wednesday  that the state increased Con Ed’s assessment cost an additional $250 Million, up from $33 Million in 2008-2009.McGee wrote in an statement issued WPCNR Friday morning, “Not all the money Con Edison will be collecting is Con Edison customer money. A portion of it is being collected from ESCO (Electric Supply Companies), so the gross (assessment increase) figure appears to represent 800% or more increase, while for Con Edison customers it’s really a 500%increase.”

 

WPCNR emphasizes that the dollar amount,  whether it is isolated out in the electric bill as a separate charge, included in the kilowatt hour rate, or in the Delivery Charge, and how much per month it will be for the individual customer has yet to be determined by the Public Service Commission. They will consider that April 21. The 500% figure mention by Mr. McGee does not mean the electric or gas bill is going up 500%.

 

 

Impact

 

Mr. Denn  of the Public Service Commission told WPCNR, “At the end of the day, it’s going to impact the rate payer’s bill.”

 

Denn said that since the new 2-Part Assessment was just installed into the budget last week, it was a new issue the Public Service Commission would consider along with Con Edision’s Delivery Charge request, “and how best to accommodate these (new) charges.”

 

 

Meanwhile…back in the State Assembly…Fixed Electric Rates Probing

 

The WPCNR report of the new assessment, the scope of which is to be determined, comes at   the time Associated Press reports today that an Assembly Committee is looking in to alleged “over charging on electric bills and is seeking evidence of conflicts of interests and collusion among New York producers.”

 

Meanwhile…back in the Governor’s Office…Utility Customer Rights Protection

 

The Assembly “investigation” parallels a news release from Governor David Paterson distributed to the media, in which the governor announced “a major consumer outreach effort to remind New York residents who are struggling with utility bills of their rights and “protections” regarding service termination and reconnecting utility services.” That release may be viewed at http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0408092.html.

 

Hits: 0

WPCNR MR. AND MRS. AND MS. WHITE PLAINS POLL. April 9, 2009: Well the $160.2 Million 2009-10 City Budget as hammered out by the Mayor’s Office is in. It predicts a $12.4 Million gap between expected revenues and expenses and suggests various remedies for making up that gap. The budget as is calls for a 4.9% city tax increase upping the city property tax of the average White Plains $650,000 to $700,000 home $134, and the tax on the $450,000 home about $110. However, the budget proposes using $12,400 of fund balance to fund expected arbitrated union settlements and revenue shortfalls from parking, mortgage recording taxes and licensing and permit fees, among other shortfalls based on current trends. What the budget does is fund expected union contracts with money it does not expect to receive, and instead uses fund balance to do that.

If city economy does not uplift spectactularly the city will not have the revenue or the fund balance in 2010-11 to pay the expected union settlements, if revenues remain on the current track. The city needs the revenues (projected at $138 Million for 2009-2010  to  rebound beyond the 2007-2008 level of $141 Million ( which saw the zeneith of the White Plains Renaissance and the highest sales tax ever received by White Plains –$45.7Million) in 2010-11 to find that $12.4 Million in fund balance to break even in 2010-11. The city needs at least $155 Million in revenues to balance the 2010-11 Budget if expenses remain at present levels $148 Million, considering inflation. Is this New York State in microcasm?

Well Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. White Plains what would you do? Tell the Common Council what they should do with this year’s budget — how does White Plains avoid going broke in 2010-11?  You decide from the following suggestions:

1: Property Income Tax Increase to Keep Pace with Expenses:  WPCNR projects that to make up the $12.4 Million deficit in the 2009-10 budget, the council could decree a tax increase of 30% which would generate $57 Million on the present city assessment roll of $285.2 Million. It would be good to make the tax increase this year (even though it is an election year), simply because assessments will decline significantly next year — perhaps as high as $10 Million if past trends are an indicator of what the certiorari lawyers have up their sleeves.

So the time to get a big bang on the tax increase buck –is now.  If the $650,000 to $700,000 home in White Plains faced a 30% tax increase it would lift the tax bill in 09-10 beginning in July from $2,724 to $3,700, a $1,000 tax increase. Of course the council could choose to raise half the amount by property tax (increase of 15%) cutting the tax increase on the average home to $500, and raise it elsewhere. What do you think?

2. Commuter Tax– White Plains could slip a tax on persons living outside White Plains who work in White Plains.  The mechanics of this might be explored. This way the residents of White Plains would be spared a significant (see # 1) tax increase.  Should this be explored?

3. Fire Commissioners and Management: The 37  appointed officials in White Plains earn collectively $5,000,000 — should a large portion of  this staff be asked for their resignations — to save money in 09-10 — allowing the new administration to appoint a leaner city administration?

4.  Lease City Institutions: The budget as published suggests leasing city municipal garages, selling property, and WPCNR suggests perhaps privatizing the City Library…at least NOT spending $600,000 on the window replacements. What do you think about leasing the garages (to bring in an estimated $30 Million up front?)

5. Raise Sales Tax Another 1/4%: The Administration has suggested this as a means of raising the approximately $4.5 to 5 Million in money that would conveniently cover the 2009-10 labor settlements. How do Mr. and Ms. White Plains feel about this option raising the sales tax? (The council has tabled this option until May).

6. Surcharge Penalties for Filing Certioraris. A new wave of certiorari filings for the last three tax years is on the way, if this past January is any indication, especially for commerical properties. Should the city enact surcharge for every certiorari filed, as a cost of evaluation of each challenge? Should businesses collectively in the city be charged a percentage of any settlement (to preserve city services of course), and realtors be charged a fee for homeowners filing certioraris. Just a few suggestions. Anyway should some kind of Certiorari Penalty Surcharge on all businesses be explored by the city to replace lost revenues from assessment reductions.  

 

 

Hits: 0

WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. By John F. Bailey. April 7, 2009: The 2009-10 City Budget released last night to the Common Council paints a picture of city cash reserves depleting significantly in less than a year.  Substantial additional revenues, it reports need to be created “through sale of city assets, cost savings and privatizations.”

 

Preserving the fund balance at the current $17.7 Million of reserves, if done by tax increase only have to  raise city property tax by 30%. The 09-10 proposed budget  increases taxes 4.9% but only cuts the budget by .06%

 

Unless city revenues recover significantly  by about $12 Million  in 2009-10, the proposed 2009-10 budget will see the White Plains “rainy day fund,” its fund balance decline to $5.3 Million, according to the budget book. 

The city bank account  stood at $28.4 Million at the close of 2007-2008 at “the height” of the White Plains “Renaissance.” If the revenue projection holds steady,  the city will have only $5.3 Million  in the bank to fund the city payroll increases anticipated in 2010-2011, analysis of the budget indicates, and would be forced to raise taxes by 30% then, pending revenue recovery.

 

The budget says additional revenue sources amounting to $50 Million can be achieved and it expects to achieve them by

 

• Selling additional taxi medallions
  
• Sale of Towing Medallions
  
• Commercial Fire Inspection Fees
  
• Sale of Firehouses 4 (currently headquartering the Police Emergency Services Unit) and Firehouse 5, on  Robertson Avenue in Battle Hill.  Both houses are inactive. 
  
• Establishing an Industrial Development Agency (though Councilman Dennis Power commented Monday evening, that might only generate $2 Million revenue, based on his knowledge of the County IDA.)
  
• Dual residential and commercial property tax rates “to stem the tide of property tax challenges.”
  
• Leasing of 2 parking facilities (Galleria Garage and Library Garage)
  
• Hotel Tax of 3% (sitting in the state legislature, awaiting possible passage)
  
• An additional ¼% sales tax increment.

 

Stimulating a Discussion

 

According to a reading of the city budget,  a copy of which could be acquired only this morning by WPCNR, the city answer to a predicted $10 Million deficit calculated for the current budget year 2008-2009,  is: “While the City will likely finish the 2008-2009 fiscal year with a deficit approaching $10 Million, there are sufficient accumulated financial reserves to absorb this financial shortfall.” In view of that statement, this means the fund balance dips to $17.7 Million going into 2009-10.

 

The budget poses the question that it is up to the Common Council in dialogue with the administration to decide whether this is prudent policy, stating “The following forecasts (of fund balance use) are not absolutes, but are provided to stimulate a constructive discussion of the City’s overall economic position as the Common Council reviews the proposed budget.”

 

The Scenario

 

The city is predicting a $12.4 Million deficit in 2009-10 predicting revenues of $136.1 Million against expenses of $148.5 Million, their answer: decrease the city budget $990,117, even though the City Commissioner of Finance was predicting $4.6 Million in lost revenue a month ago.  

 

The city is raising the property tax 4.9% and that “reflects the amount of revenue that is required to be generated from the City’s assessment roll to balance the City’s budget after all other revenues have been included.”  The city cites loss of assessments to have cost the city $1.3 Million in revenue.

 

Should the revenues not recover in 2009-10, the city is hedging by dedicating $12.4 Million more in fund balance into the budget just in case: “The total appropriation of  fund balance in the proposed fiscal year 2009-10 general fund budget is $12.4 Million…Given the extent of the economic downturn, significant utilization of undesignated fund balance is not surprising.”

 

City Bets Revenues Will Not Be Worse.

 

In order not to touch the fund balance, the revenues projected at $136.1 Million ($44.1 Million in property taxes and $47.3 Million in sales tax plus $17.1 Million in services charges and $9.4 Million in government revenues)  will have to rebound beyond 2007-08 levels ($141 Million).

 

The city is cutting a stated $990, 717  from the 2008-09 budget.

 

Budget not set in Stone: for Discussion.

More Tax Increase Up to Council.

 

The copy in the 2009-10 budget says  the decision of increasing property taxes beyond 5% in the hands of the Common Council.

 

WPCNR predicts that to run a budget that keeps the remaining $17.7 Million fund balance intact by taxes alone, the Common Council needs to authorize an additional  29%  property tax increase.

 

Here’s our Math Lab Report: If you take out the fund balance budgeted for 09-10: $12.4 Million, you have to replace it.  If you do it through the property tax only , you need to raise the city’s projected tax rate of $154.70 per $1,000 of assessed value to $198 per $1,000 of assessed value based on current projections.

 

Tax Increase  would have to push 30% to Make Up the Projected Deficit

 

That impact of preserving fund balance through property tax increases alone would be significant on the $650,000-$700,000 priced home in White Plains. That home’s city tax would go from $2,724 in 2008-09 to $3,658, a $934  property tax increase.  

 

The $400,000 home, assessed at 15,000 would pay $2,303 in city tax under the 4.9% increase proposed by the Mayor’s budget. That same $400,000 home if the council chose to preserve fund balance and pay off the deficit with a tax increase of 30%  at the $198 per $1,000 of assessed value would pay $2,970. a $91 increase.

 

The Mayor’s Budget Book detailed $990,717 in cuts on a $161.6 Million 2008-09 budget.

 

Cuts Proposed Short of $4 Million Goal

 

Those cuts include a $615,392 cut in the city contribution to the Library Operating fund.

 

The city will cut $100,000 of funding to the White Plains Performing Arts Center. It is not clear whether the city will cease paying the operating costs of the center.  (The Center is now scrambling to find sources of funding to keep it performing, according to its  operator,  White Plains Performing Arts Center, Inc. )

 

Over $700,000 of the Mayor’s $990,117 of cut is being born by the Library and the Arts Center. The Mayor is telling the various city departments to reserve 5% of their budgets and not spend it, pending revenue pace in the next year.

 

The $990,117 falls some $3 Million short of the savings the Mayor was asking four in mid-fall.

 

The city uses the fund balance to pay projected union contract raises in the amount of  $6.1 Million in the Reserve for Financing. The city has decided to go to binding arbitration with the police and fire unions, perhaps conceding to a settlement in line with recent settlements around the area, about 3.75% to 4% for 09-10 and 2010-11.