Showing posts with label authorities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authorities. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

PSU predictions N@

Do the victims expand (be it at a much smaller measure) to include the 55 men on the football team today, and the 20 woman volleyball squad in 2014 if $20-M evaporates at PSU because of an abrupt removal of people due to a wicked backlash?

It is an honest question.

An airplane pilot can be pulled out of the drivers seat because a co pilot some years ago became an accused rapist. But there is a full plane of different people still in flight. Auto pilot can't land that jumbo jet with confidence. We have time, space and relationship problems and these matters need to be measured in real time.

My guess is Jo Pa is in the press box on Saturday in Nebraska and is not on the sidelines or even in the stadium the final two regular season games. He will get to talk to the team a few more times. He will get to game prep with film and such. All the assistants will be gone after the regular season. A bowl game might be declined. Who in the world hires the next staff is for another day.

Monday, November 07, 2011

The Clean Rivers Campaign needs your help this Wednesday the 9th at at 5pm at the IBEW Hall on Hot Metal Street in the South Side.

Do you want a say in the largest infrastructure project this area has ever seen?

Do want to create GREEN, family-sustaining jobs?
The Clean Rivers Campaign needs your help this Wednesday the 9th at at 5pm at the IBEW Hall on Hot Metal Street in the Southside.
 
The campaign is organizing citizens into our project but we need to show larger community interest in the issue at this event this Wednesday.
 
We plan to have 100 people at press event at 5pm in the hall (since rain is predicted that day.) Folloing the press event starting at 6:00pm is an ALCOSAN Town Hall meeting where they will lay out the plan they have to fix the sewers.
The KEY POINTS of this issue:

1-      Federal law and Federal court enforcement requires us to fix the sewers that put raw sewage into our rivers;

2-      ALCOSAN has spent years developing a plan for this fix that the clean rivers campaign believes creates the least number of jobs (both construction and permanent maintenance) and does nothing to make our communities more livable. They want to dig deep tunnels to store the sewage when stormwater comes and treat it in expanded facilities.

3-      The plan that ALCOSAN has is not affordable by the standards set by the Federal EPA. The tunnels would cost at least $4 billion and the EPA says we can afford about $2 billion. In earlier meetings (tho not in the series of Town Hall meetings already held in the last 2 weeks) ALCOSAN has said this means their plan will be rejected in January 2013 when it is submitted and that years more will be required to renegotiate the deal with the EPA.

4-      At our press conference Wednesday the 9th at 5pm the Clean Rivers Campaign will announce that we want to help ALCOSAN get a new deal with the EPA that reduces the sewer overflows significantly but also prioritizes getting the most number of construction and permanent maintenance jobs as well as the using the most green infrastructure as we can to both reduce the amount of stormwater that goes into the sewers as well as significantly improving the communities with trees, permeable parking lots and roads, green roofs and things that have proven to raise property values and bring business districts back to life.
 
We believe that unless the public sees us getting the most jobs and community improvements, there will be an outraged negative reaction to this whole deal that will make moving forward on fixing the sewers impossible.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Fw: Policy Brief: Pittsburgh's Pension Solution: Between a Rock and Hard Place



Policy Brief

An electronic publication of

The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy



July 20, 2010                                                                                                               Volume 10, Number 38

























In last week's Policy Brief (Volume 10, Number 37) we showed that the proposal to lease Parking Authority facilities as a means to raise $200 million for Pittsburgh's pension funds would require—at a minimum—a near doubling of the cost to park at the lessee's garages, lots and meters.  Factoring in inflation, the hikes in cost to park necessary to make the lease a break even situation for the lessee could exceed 100 percent in four to five years.  Clearly, there is a high probability such large increases in parking rates at the Parking Authority's spaces will be a major deterrent to parking in the City.  Many businesses would suffer, creating further, and possibly irreparable, economic damage to Pittsburgh's already beleaguered private sector.  And that in turn will reduce the City's tax base, something it can absolutely not afford.



One potential consequence could be construction of additional private garages and lots to compete with the lessee's spaces.  Of course in the Downtown area that is hard because of the paucity of sites for such construction. However, in other parts of the City that could happen fairly quickly and easily.  The result would be loss of patronage at the lessee's facilities making it even harder for the leasing company to avoid losses.



Another unintended consequence of the massive jump in rates at the leased Parking Authority spaces is the opening it would give privately owned facilities, especially those in close proximity to a lessee facility, to raise their parking rates. After all, one of the effects of publicly owned spaces such as the Parking Authority is to hold down average parking rates. Because the publicly owned facility is not subject to taxes on property, payrolls, or any of the other myriad taxes paid by business and does not have to earn a return on investment, it can charge lower rates than privately owned parking facilities.



By way of background bear in mind that the high cost of parking in Pittsburgh, particularly Downtown, stems from two basic elements. First, there is a tight supply of spaces relative to the demand for parking.  Second, the City's extraordinarily high parking tax—aimed at commuters and visitors—boosts the price substantially. At 40 percent a $10 rate becomes a $14 charge. This is well above what most comparable cities levy. Indeed, most such cities have no parking tax.  The point is tight supply and the resulting high prices deter some potential parkers who would venture into town if parking rates were lower. But lower rates will only come about if supply of spaces rises significantly; there is a dramatic and unexpected permanent decline in demand or if the parking tax rate is reduced substantially.   



The pressing problem facing the City is the deal the Mayor made with the Legislature last year that kept Pittsburgh from having its pension fund administration taken over by a state agency.  The Mayor asked for time to find a solution to the City's underfunded pensions in exchange for the City pension funds not being brought under immediate state administration.  Now the City has until the end of the year to get the pensions funded at the 50 percent level or lose control over pension fund management.



Since the legislative deal was made, Pittsburgh has been focused on leasing the Parking Authority facilities as a means to raise the $200 million needed to lift pension funding to 50 percent.  To accomplish that, a lessee would have to come up with roughly $300 million so the $100 million in Parking Authority debt could be retired. And as noted earlier that amount necessitates a doubling of parking rates to create a break even situation for the lessee.



Unless the City completes the lease transaction by January, it will face a state takeover of the pension funds and could be required to boost its annual contribution as much as $30 million.  Given Pittsburgh's shaky financial picture, finding $30 million more each year is a daunting task. Major spending cuts and possibly higher property or other taxes would have to be on the table.



So, here's the predicament: to proceed with the $300 million proposed lease by the end of the year or not. Either option poses serious economic and/or political headaches for the City.  Which option would be worse and are there alternatives to the two options that could be developed before January?



Doubling the cost of parking is definitely the worst option. The potential harm to the Pittsburgh economy and its business community is simply not worth taking. At the same time, making a 7 percent cut in general fund spending would produce most of the $30 million in additional funding that will be required if the City does not proceed with the lease.  Those savings can be realized by outsourcing services that are easiest to privatize, freezing wages, instituting a hiring freeze and cutting staff as required to meet spending cuts. Note that a 7 percent spending cut would still leave Pittsburgh's per capita general fund expenditures far above comparable U.S. cities.  The spending cuts could be phased in over two years to allow time to implement the big changes. 



And while making the 7 percent reduction in spending will be politically difficult, it would be far better for the City's future than doubling parking rates.



There are some things the City can do to help itself out of the dilemma. First, it could go hat in hand to the Legislature and ask for more time to find a fix for the massively underfunded pensions. There is a chance the Legislature might listen if the City can show a reasonable plan for getting to the 50 percent funding level over a short period of time that does not involve doubling parking costs. Still, given the nature of the pressure used to induce the Legislature to make the existing deal, they may well give the City's request short shrift.



Second, the City could slash the parking tax rate. As noted previously one of the factors driving the required parking rates so high is the 40 percent parking tax rate that will go into effect in 2011 if a lease is consummated.  If the parking tax were lowered to 20 percent the parking price would have to rise only 58 percent. And if the lessee could save $5 million in operating expenses, the parking prices would need to rise only 41 percent. This would be a much more manageable increase that would put the lessee rates in line with private parking facilities.  



The down side is that cutting parking tax rates to 20 percent would result in a significant decline in parking tax revenue because the overwhelming share of parking revenue is generated by private facilities and those owned by other authorities. The prospective revenue loss will almost certainly dissuade the City from seriously entertaining the suggested tax rate reduction. However, by making appropriate cuts in government spending the lost parking tax revenue could be offset.  And most importantly perhaps, the lease could go ahead and $200 million for the pension funds would be in place and the state would not be taking over the pension funds.



Raising $200 million in a lump sum by the end of the year without hurting the City is a daunting challenge.  Pittsburgh finds itself in this dilemma because of years of neglect and failure to act in a financially responsible way. There are no easy ways out at this juncture. There is no free lunch. A $300 million payment by a lessee to buy an entity with net operating revenues of $7 million has to be paid for. Better that it not be through a doubling of the price to park at 19,000 spaces. The time to bite the bullet and make significant spending cuts is here.


 Jake Haulk, Ph.D., President                                                       






For updates and commentary on daily issues please visit our blog at alleghenyinstitute.org/blog.



If you have enjoyed reading this Policy Brief and would like to send it to a friend, please feel free to forward it to them.

For more information on this and other topics, please visit our web site: alleghenyinstitute.org

If you wish to support our efforts please consider becoming a donor to the Allegheny Institute.  The Allegheny Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and all contributions are tax deductible.  Please mail your contribution to: 


The Allegheny Institute

305 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard

Suite 208

Pittsburgh, PA  15234

Thank you for your support.


Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Examples of pulling rank play out at the Olympics

Examples of pulling rank play out at the Olympics 'The Olympics are a great festival of human beings seeking rank, and that's OK,' he said. 'We all seek high rank, and we rather enjoy watching other people seek gold medals, and we applaud the victor and feel sorry for the loser.'

Problems arise when rank holders abuse their power.
No kidding.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Competitive Bid raises its head -- again -- but winks, blinks and nods prevail

Pittsburgh's water authority ups debt - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: After meeting with PNC and authority representatives, council members questioned why the financial work was not competitively bid.

'I don't think that it's been the policy to bid these out,' said State Rep. Don Walko, the authority chairman. 'I think you just try to find the best team.'

Walko said PNC and JP Morgan assembled the authority's separate $25 million bond refinancing in 2007 and that using the firms again would save money.
City Council had them right where they wanted them. City Council folded.

Well, there is always next time. But next time in this instance is in 2042, give or take a decade.

City council blew it. None even asked a question on the day of the final vote. It was a slam dunk to get more debt.

The 'consent decree' to fix the storm water run off calls for certain measures to be made. Little has happened. Why?

Stewardships. Management. Accountability. Solvency.

The PWSA came about when Tom Murphy hatched an idea for a one-time fix of cash. All the Dems when along with it then. All the Dems sustain it now. Meanwhile, the water main breaks around town are everywhere.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Mayor vetos Parking Tax Freeze -- but I'm still waiting for him to say he'd liquidate the Parking Authority

Folks, the mayor didn't 'veto the parking tax.' No.

The mayor put the veto pen to a bill that would have kept the parking tax at its current sky-high amount. The parking tax is due to drop again this year according to state measures. Then the parking tax will sit at another sky high amount, but slightly less than before.

Other than one fleeting mention by Jim Motznik (after he becomes mayor) (giving credit where credit is due), I have not heard anyone request the liquidation of the Parking Authority.

I've been calling for the liquidation of the Parking Authority for years.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Steelers fear. Steelers are RENTERS. Buy Heinz Field and then let's talk

Steelers fear casino traffic on game days 'There's a whole different picture on the North Shore that needs to be looked at,' he said.
The Steelers rent Heinz Field. The team has no sway unless it buys Heinz Field.

I think we should sell Heinz Field to the Steelers. And, let's sell PNC Park to the Pirates. And, let's keep the Civic Arena too, while we're at it.

These teams rent. If they were owners, we'd have another discussion.

Don Barden is going to own his casino.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Pittsburgh's pleading for nonprofit money called 'unique'

Interesting how unique is good for some but bad for others. Think unicorns. Think again.
Pittsburgh's pleading for nonprofit money called 'unique' Pittsburgh's pleading for nonprofit money called 'unique'

I posted what I'd do over at 2PJ's blog.

2 Political Junkies: Rich Lord on a Budget Problem The way to deal with the nonprofit problem is to call it what it is -- a nonprofit opportunity.

The nonprofits are wonderful.

The nonprofits are a success. Pittsburgh is a success. We all win.

Now that the obvious is out of the way -- (tip FYI, they can't tax nonprofits) -- we need to get the nonprofits to agree to curtail all future expansion into a bigger footprint.

I would strike a deal with the nonprofit weenie group to insist that a detailed inventory of space be conducted. I want to know how many inches of land these nonprofit folks control / own.

Then I'd insist upon yearly progress -- and a plan -- to shrink that space.

Nonprofit consolidation needs to occur. We don't need them sitting on idle land.

And when one nonprofit wants to grow its footprint, growth should occur only if another nonprofit makes an equal or greater contraction. Or else, growth of nonprofits could always occur upward. Hint: Build taller buildings.

Nonprofits should be leveraged so as to improve upon Pittsburgh's density.

Last week's example of the Cathedral of Learning by acting controller Tony P was insane. Those were foolish remarks by Tony P.

Finally, the nonprofit universities should do property inspections on behalf of their students / customers. Not the city.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Convention Center: They pulled in "independent consultants" -- I'd push for indie ownership

The notion of a review from indiependent consultants, guys who didn't build the building is a few bricks shy of a full load.

Don't be so keen to bring in 'indie reviewers.'

Let's push for Independent Ownership.

Sell the Convention Center. Privitize it. Unload it from public ownership. Government should not be in the position of ownership, management, finance nor oversight for a commercial building.

Don't fire the executive director of the SEA. Fire her and the entire SEA Board. Liquidate everything.

If Governor Rendell feels that he can sell the PA Turnpike, I bet it will be 100-times easier to sell the Convention Center.

A few years ago I pushed for the new slots parlor to be bid so it would move in and take over the Convention Center. That didn't happen. It should have come to pass.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Councilman Peduto wants ethics board activated - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Exactly.
Councilman Peduto wants ethics board activated - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Former Mayor Sophie Masloff created the board in the early 1990s.
This board never met for the duration of Bill Peduto's entire career on Grant Street. Now we have two meetings next week because there is a campaign.

We should cut the length of term of each elected office in half as long as there are overlords running the city. The term of the Mayor's office, and the term of the city council members, as well as controller, should be two years, not four, as long as the I.C.A. and Act 47 team is in town.

Port Authority urged to move to less-expensive office space

Jack opens up a new front in the war against PAT.
Port Authority urged to move to less-expensive office space The Port Authority could save money by moving out of rented office space in the Heinz 57 Center, Downtown, and going back to its partly vacant former administration building in Manchester, state Auditor General Jack Wagner said.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

WQED Multimedia offers turn back the clock specials


WQED Multimedia The WQED Multimedia Board of Directors is a volunteer group of people from the community who set the mission and strategic direction of WQED.
Due to demand and budget constraints, WQED's board meetings in 2007 will be re-runs of past meetings of the 2005 and 2006 season.

With luck, James C. Roddey and Elsie Hillman will narrate in sweeps week.