City Council Rejects Tax Break, Plus: Lee On Budget: ‘Half Truths Of Padding, Ghost Employees And Half Stories’

Update: votes against.

In a rare vote against Mayor Bill Finch Monday night the City Council torpedoed a proposed tax break for a developer. Prior to the council meeting citizen fiscal observer John Marshall Lee, considering a run for City Council, addressed the legislative and budget body as a whole Monday night, “the last chance I will have to speak to you as a voting body before you act on the 2015-16 Operating and Capital Budgets.” Finch has submitted a spending plan with no tax increase in this election-year budget.

Council members who voted against abatement: Lydia Martinez, Milta Feliciano, Alfredo Castillo, Jose Casco, Patricia Swain, Bob Halstead, Enrique Torres, Melanie Jackson, Michelle Lyons and Richard Salter.

From Lee:

Recently I have focused on materials provided to you before a decision and whether it is trustworthy. In the case of approval for $44 Million of Capital spending, a two-page outline of over 30 projects is striking for the information it fails to provide for each project. Perhaps one or more items should be in the Operating Budget where you get some information monthly, rather than the Capital budget where there is no regular reporting mechanism at this time. You need to monitor and verify the money and budgets you vote upon better for real accountability.

In recent appearances I have called into question the number of mistakes and errors that routinely show up in City fiscal documents. I will guess that no one proofreads them or that folks in power do not care what they send out, as they do not expect you to read and reflect on the numbers. Errors are a part of the problem but so is the failure by the City to use its MUNIS fiscal reporting to its full extent by including grants revenue with footnotes, totals of those employed with taxpayer dollars, and meaningful service indicators of performance for departments and programs. Can you trust City reports?

I nominate the Police and Fire Department budgets as presented monthly and in proposed budgets for the Annual Obfuscation Award. Thank you to the Councilman who asked for a budget presentation restricted to the six Office of Policy Management categories. It helps you focus on variances from one month or one year to the next. That executive type summary should become your standard going forward. When you review and need more info you can always request it. Start with the simple display.

However, representing the largest serious problems I find in your budget, are the continued half truths of padding, ghost employees, and half stories. With the experience of Baltimore so recent in our minds, we know that schools, police and youth programs of all kinds are being held up to critical light by the media. For tonight let us postpone schools and police and focus on formal funded youth afterschool and summer program provider, Lighthouse. Pages 315 to 318 of the Proposed Budget provide a most incomplete presentation of this program.

• While targeting 3500 youth to be served by after-school and summer programs among others, they report serving no more than 2800 year round. (Crudely estimated $1,750,000/ 2800 = $625 per youth expense.) Where are the details listed below included?
• When revenue data is requested, NOT APPLICABLE is stated, yet in a recent report to the BOE, Lighthouse claims $850,000 of registration and fee revenue (and there is no specific info on how many scholarships or fee mitigation cases may exist or such process.)
• In addition the total 2015 budget revenue is $4,551,362 including Federal grants of $860,000 and State Department of Education grants of $570,504 and two other grants from the State of CT totaling $501,000. ($4,551,362/ 2800 = $1625.49 per youth!)
• The program is budgeting $3,651,232 for next year including grants that is twice what they show the City Council. And the BOE charges no rent for school space used by the programs, an in-kind act that is most helpful to Lighthouse expenses and the City budget. Does it serve to offset any of the City listed in-kind contributions to the BOE?

Did the Council look at this program this year? Were any questions asked to explore how the program spends twice what the local taxpayer provides with no further increase than 2800 youth when there are almost 25,000 Bridgeport youth from the K-12 population in public, charter, parochial and other schools? Are you aware that there is a local non-profit serving over 4,200 youth in Westport, Fairfield, and Bridgeport providing similar services and afterschool and summer programs funded on a budget of $2.5 Million? Why not benchmark both programs for efficiency?

Who is auditing or monitoring Lighthouse? Has their very necessary light for the youth of our community grown dim and prevented more outreach and programs because fees are too high, because administrative compensation appears excessive, or because the program is no longer a dynamic force? City Council members will you consider a thorough study, followed by a public presentation and hearing, with Council participation? (Whether one of the Budget co-chairs should participate or vote is his ethical decision.) How many parents wish for such a program for their youth yet are left on the sidewalk by the current fee structure or management decisions? Time will tell.