.
Feedback

New London Irish Parade Plans Relocation Over Municipal Costs

City and parade committee at stalemate over costs of police and Public Works services for annual St. Patrick's Day event

Members of the New London Irish Parade and Mayor Daryl Finizio have accused one another of improper motives in the parade committee’s decision to hold its 2013 event in another community.

Marie Friess-McSparran, who was elected to the City Council last year, said the committee was unable to come to terms with the administration and recently voted to hold the parade elsewhere. She said a new community has not yet been determined.

“I can't say this is final because I would have to bring it back to the committee for a vote. I don't make the final decisions, but the will of the committee is that they are pretty frustrated with the city administration,” said Friess-McSparran. “They have been unwilling to commit to a final amount so we can get our permit and move along with preparations for the parade.”

The disagreement between the administration and committee involved the costs associated with municipal services that would have to be used in the event. Finizio issued an executive order in May putting several strategies into place to have city departments stay within their appropriated budgets. One section said the city will not approve a permit for any special event involving city services unless organizers have accounted for the cost of these services and paid the amount up front.

Cost estimates

The parade includes the use of services by the New London Police Department and Department of Public Works. The former department's services include officers and cruisers used to block intersections and direct traffic, while the latter department's work includes providing barricades and signage as well as painting symbols such as shamrocks or Irish flags along the parade route.

The 2012 parade, the fifth one held in the city, included a more extensive route which went down Jay Street, Huntington Street, Tilley Street, Bank Street, and State Street. The estimated police cost was $15,076.81. An item appropriating $15,000 to cover the extra police costs incurred in the event was unanimously defeated by the City Council on March 20, according to the council’s minutes. Finizio cited the police overtime costs for the parade as one factor motivating the executive order.

According to documents and e-mails provided by parade organizers and the administration, the initial police estimate to cover the same route in 2013 was $14,715.65. The initial estimate of the Department of Public Works was $3,489.79, including $1,867.79 for labor and $1,622 for equipment and materials.

The committee offered to pay $7,500 for municipal costs. Deputy Police Chief Peter Reichard estimated that the cost of a shorter route encompassing only Bank Street and State Street, which the parade has done in the past, would be $6,437.26 This would include the use of three supervisors, 12 officers, and five cruisers. Reichard said expanding the route would require additional officers and cruisers at the cost of $343 per officer and $25 per hour per cruiser.

Public Works Director Tim Hanser said his estimate was based on 2012 costs. The projected services included the reviewing stand, trash cans, barricades, and a total of eight employees working between two and eight hours.

Hanser later reduced the estimate to $577.44 for labor and $1,022 for equipment and materials, a total cost of $1,599.47. He said this was done by eliminating both the use of a manager and asphalt painting along the route. Hanser also suggested a shorter route and taking out the reviewing stand for further savings.

Parade reaction

Richard Mastrandrea, the parade committee’s vice president, expressed frustration with the process in a Sept. 25 e-mail to Zak Leavy, Finizio’s executive assistant. Mastrandrea said he thought Hanser had estimated at an earlier meeting that Public Works costs would be between $600 and $800, and said he thought suggestions he had mailed to the mayor’s office had been overlooked or ignored.

“We have spent the last month trying to get firm figures to secure a permit for our parade. At each step I am told it is difficult to predict what the final cost will be with the event [six] months away and that worries me,” Mastrandrea said. “I get the impression that a final amount can't/won't be finalized until some time after the new year and that will keep our securing of the permit in limbo.”

Mastrandrea said in a Sept. 24 e-mail to Leavy that the committee would not be able to vote on the permit without more concrete figures on the costs for municipal services.

“How can our committee conduct a conversation then vote on continuing to have a parade here in New London when we are provided with only vague numbers and incomplete information?” he said. “If this is the best information the city of New London can provide, I will present the committee with your findings and we will vote based on your e-mails.”

Friess-McSparran said she thought the event should be billed as a city event rather than a private one, noting that the City Council voted 3-2 on Feb. 21 to endorse it as a city-sanctioned event. She also questioned some of the costs cited by Public Works, saying the city already owns items such as the barricades, garbage cans, and reviewing stand.

“It seems like the administration was trying to find ways to bankrupt the parade instead of finding ways to make it possible for this small nonprofit to be able to produce this event which tries to shine a positive light on New London for one day a year,” said Friess-McSparran. “We were unable to get a final fixed price for the services so we could obtain our permit, be able to fundraise, book participants and solicit sponsorships.”

Mayor reaction

Finizio said he and other members of the city administration have worked with the parade committee to determine costs and try to bring them to the level of the $7,500 offer. He said he was disappointed to see the issue brought up in a David Collins column in The Day and considered it an attempt to cast aspersion on the administration.

“It’s just so obviously a political attack instead of a real consent for seeing this event go forward, which I thought was what we all wanted,” said Finizio.

Finizio’s mayoral campaign was a sponsor of the 2011 parade. He marched in this year’s parade as a co-grand marshal along with Superintendent Sandra Stosz of the Coast Guard Academy. At the time, he said the parade’s offer made him the first openly gay grand marshal in a sanctioned St. Patrick’s Day parade.

Finizio said he is willing to continue work with the parade committee to address the issues, offering to help support the event with personal funds. He said the city could also absorb some expenses if the costs run beyond $7,500.

“I recognize the tremendous importance of this event and the benefit it brings to the downtown business community,” he said.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from New London Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Carol Haley May 19, 2013 at 07:14 pm
Here's the latest Spencer from the AP, if we can believe them: Traffic in southwest ConnecticutRead More could be a mess for as much as a week until service is restored to the commuter rail line affected by a derailment that injured scores of passengers, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy warned Sunday.
Spencer May 19, 2013 at 07:10 pm
Another blow to not only NL's but the entire Southern CT's economy! Guess who will be picking upRead More the tab?
Carol Haley May 19, 2013 at 05:26 pm
I read that Malloy is hoping Monday but there are problems with the tracks and that has to beRead More repaired. Taking a guestimate, if it isn't Monday, maybe the end of the week.
John Martin May 19, 2013 at 02:42 pm
Of course, you are assuming that the government fund managers would be responsible. So far, this hasRead More been far from the case. The Federal government has plundered Social Security for decades, the teacher and state employee funds have been systematically looted. Of course they want to open this up to anyone with dollars in their pockets. I am not opposed to a program like this - in fact, economies of scale using voluntary contributions in a well-managed plan could be quite beneficial. If the government is going to be allowed to administer the program, there needs to be stringent safeguards, the funds must be untouchable, and there should be swift and significant consequences for mismanagement. Oh, but wait - this is Connecticut. Of course people will find their dollars funding the 'progressive' agenda with no regard for the state's fiduciary, legal, and moral obligation to the contributors.
Kathleen Mitchell May 19, 2013 at 10:45 am
If I read this correctly and, if not, I'm sure someone will correct me, the highlights of this billRead More are (1) It's designed for workers "who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employer" (2) "workers can take their investment with them as they move from job to job." (3) "whatever administrative costs are associated with the plan are charged to the participants themselves, not Connecticut taxpayers." I haven't read the bill yet but I don't see anything in this article by Richard Waselik regarding an employer contribution or match so what is the problem?
Sue P. May 19, 2013 at 10:20 am
Richard, Are you the same Richard that sent a letter to the city council when you became concernedRead More that people that did not work for the city long enough were contributing to the pension plan? I think I have a copy of it somewhere. I think you were concerned that people were getting vested and they were not suppose to be yet.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 07:44 am
Pretty funny Spencer. But you don't want a museum there. You need something that generates taxes.Read More Museums are mostly non-profit thereby not generating any taxes. I know you were being funny. I was disgusted to read the developer couldn't show financial backing.
Kathleen Mitchell May 17, 2013 at 05:47 pm
Who would haveever thought of Wasp Spray? When you get the case of spray, be sure and drop a can offRead More at my house;>)
Jeff Brown May 17, 2013 at 03:46 pm
Good article, gonna have to pick up a case of wasp spray!
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Barbara, I agree with you. But it is probably a lot easier to get an illegal social security numberRead More than we would know. There are two ways of looking at this issue, but my resentment is that I have to pay for them.
Barbara Crocker May 17, 2013 at 07:52 am
But for state aid they would have to have a Social Security number. Bending and breaking laws isRead More how they got here in the first place. The fact that elected officials condone and encourage these laws to be broken is the biggest problem that I have with this whole debacle. "Undocumented residents" place a burden on all of us, and take jobs that could be worked by legal residents. Employers hire illegals (yes I prefer calling them what they are, to hell with being politically correct) because it saves them money, not because "no one else would work these jobs". This is a slap in the face to all of our ancestors who came to this country and followed the rules to become citizens.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 06:51 am
The way things have been going in the eastern part of the United States, as long as the illegals areRead More not breaking the law criminally (motor vehicle is different), they are not arrested for being illegal. Its the illegal immigrants who break the law, such as the large drug bust recently in the papers. As long as they are minding their own business, they get a pass. The only problem I have with illegals is their rush to get on state aid, food stamps, etc. I don't think we should have to support those that choose to live in this country illegally. Becoming a US citizen is not cheap. It is expensive, but it is something that they must work for.
Spencer May 16, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Perhaps because people who vote continue to vote the same way they have for years--and expect to getRead More different results when they do so?
Carol Haley May 15, 2013 at 05:05 pm
Sounds like a bunch of goobledygook to me. And Sue, the Democrats being divided isn't anything newRead More as well as the backstabbing and bs. It's been going on for years. That is one of the reasons I changed to independent a long time ago. I'm presently a Democrat, but changing back to independent as soon as I can get down there.
Felicia Hendersen May 15, 2013 at 09:00 am
Bravo Sue P. And Kathleen I changed the word from "her" to "his". Why shouldRead More people not question the motives of the city council president?
Sue P. May 15, 2013 at 08:53 am
Glad to here that Felicia, I sure hope that you are who you are and not the HE I was told you are.Read More Now is the time to work together and not pick each other apart like the Administration is doing to the Democrat Town Committee.You should see how divided they are and all the back stabbing and bickering that goes on. I say stay clear of that group.
William Desmond May 14, 2013 at 12:47 pm
I must say this has created quite a stir!
Luis Smart May 14, 2013 at 07:04 am
I agree Richard argyle sweaters would have really made it. It is really sad Michael Passero has goneRead More to the dark side and has aligned himself with the administration rather than the people of the city. The one time high vote getter will be all done in November.
Richard Cranium May 13, 2013 at 10:26 pm
I think it is pretty funny although they should be wearing argyle vest sweaters!