Crunch Time For Budget Committee, ‘Overtasked And Understaffed’

budget committee
Council budget committee members endure long nights

The nights and weekends are long for the City Council’s Budget and Appropriations Committee reviewing Mayor Joe Ganim’s proposed $560 million spending plan in a compressed cycle. It takes endurance. Seven weary members of the committee will vote on various aspects of the budget within the next nine days before it goes to the full vote of the council scheduled for May 9 or 10. See budget schedule here.

What happens at the committee level led by co-chairs Scott Burns and Denese Taylor-Moye is usually a done deal when it goes to a full council vote. Committee members have heard their share of meowing from various government advocates. Ganim’s budget flat-funds education, cuts libraries and increases various fees to help finance the budget in a revaluation year that kicks in July 1. Ganim’s budget bolsters funding for public safety hires. For the first time the council actually has a financial analyst to help navigate the budget labyrinth submitted by the executive branch. The local budget depends heavily on the state budget that is a work in progress during the final days of the state legislative session.

John Marshall Lee, the dogged citizen fiscal scrutineer, often sits through the budget committee hearings offering his point of view while urging members to dig deep into the decisions that impact taxpayers. He attends all the public hearings and more, including this latest address that provides a sympathetic nod to the understaffed committee members.

Budget time in Bridgeport.

Seven members of the City Council, five of whom never participated in the Budget and Appropriation Committee previously and five weeks to provide an informed legislative recommendation on Mayor’s proposed Operating and Capital budgets for FY2016-17. The public has no idea how over tasked and understaffed you are in these endeavors. I do which is why I continue to attend, read, reflect, research and comment in public hearings and in print.

The Operating budget runs over 350 pages and except for a transmittal letter and 15 pages of general info and charts is devoted to reporting on over 50 Departments and divisions of same, showing:
· Mission-objectives and a organizational graphic showing where the office stands relative to the Mayor and Council
· Next is a Revenue Summary that for most departments is NOT APPLICABLE. Where it is applicable, amounts are shown for only one past audited year, the current year and YTD as of late March 2016, and FY 2017 projections and variance, if any. (What fails to be provided is any information about the way grants income is used by the administration to fund employment positions or the way other revenue sources are used to support Department mission because they are deposited into certain “revenue funds” as is the case for Lighthouse Program $850,000 and proposed for “blight fees and fines” to provide a revolving fund to assist rapid remediation. Why are not all such funds disclosed at least annually if they are used in City operations? Why are they not reported at least quarterly to the B&A for purpose of monitoring?
· The Appropriation Summary follows with six summarized categories that are totaled and variances show up immediately. Several pages later an Appropriations Supplement that provides detail is located. I recommend that two actual audited budgets be used in the future to provide better context for comparisons where desired. If space is required eliminate the current year request column as it is only the Mayor proposal that has practical meaning.
· A Personnel Summary is next for those departments with employees. This is the most confusing part of the FY 2017 proposal. Two column headings are used Filled or Vacancy. The headings are a radical change from last year where two past years, Filled, Vacant, Unfilled and New were the headings. Simply put the FILLED positions reported are not accurate and much time is wasted on trying to get to the real numbers. For years the last administration provided a chart along with the Mayor’s transmittal letter to identify over 3,000 employee positions. Why is that missing this year, in the good name of Open, Accountable, Transparent and Honest reporting?
· Goals and Goal Status are next presented in most cases though to be accurate they often are so general as to be useless in assessing or monitoring. Why are they not able to be transformed into Service Indicators for all departments with monthly of quarterly metrics presented by each department on their site and then along with monthly financial reports, showing active employees relative to budget, and indicator results. Metrics are what you valued baseball cards for from the heroes of your youth or from the sports pages today, right? On-line, available to all taxpayers, ready for City Council comprehension throughout the year? Talk about becoming prepared for budget time?

In too many cases, much of the service indicators, goals and goal status as well as appropriations summaries are not discussed at all. A waste???

The current Operating budget is not as honest as you should expect. Yes, the last administration left problems for November’s victors. The failure to project reasonable revenues and accurate expenses, especially in the retirement benefit area has set the City back this year into the next. But increasing City expenses by $28 Million, ignoring Board of Education status quo need of $15 Million and on the revenue side looking for $13.5 million more from taxpayers with some other deferred sleight of hand with accounting techniques will keep us in the same place this year. Where is a demonstration of cutting in this budget? Where are the positions cut in the case of lower priority work? Where are the Mayor’s priorities indicated in his March 3, letter and more recent comments? Can you tell your constituents what the three budget priorities are today?

Why don’t you send the budget back to the Mayor adding $12-14 Million for education to avoid these truly drastic cuts in the classrooms and then indicating an across-the-board recommended cut of 5-6% on the City side? How will that look when State revenues are completed? At least you will vote with the angels to support the 22,000 youths and two-thirds of the City employee force who provide educational service daily. Surely 5% can be found, illustrated honestly and understood in all camps? The managers of the system will then earn their big bucks by making this work.

The other task is the Capital budget. Why don’t you get more complete Capital spending and project reporting regularly? Do you ask for it? I know that you table other matters when you feel the information is not adequate or accurate. Why is the Capital budget for more than $40 million shown on two sheets for five years ahead but no context for the past? Why was the $13 Million for the Library forgotten about or lost in the short term? Why don’t you have supporting material presented to you in February, earlier? The City is requesting such info from departments per the Charter in November.

Why do non-permanent assets show up on these lists? Why are alternative financing means, like leasing, not discussed at other times of year? And why is Capital sought for a project with a private developer who is putting up only $3-4 Million, asking the City for $2 Million and the rest financed by other public funds and tax credits? Is this genuine economic development when setting up affordable housing? Don’t we need to look at the return to the City including expenses to be incurred by new residents in terms of education, public safety, library and human services as realistic expenses that are not being met today with our current budget, for current citizens? And yet we will help a private developer who does not reside in our community. Why are the full financing details not shared with Budget and Appropriations Committee? You stand in for the public. Are you increasing our “red booted underwater status?” Table the issue until you have all of the answers for the big picture, please.

And going forward on all matters assigned a number by the City Clerk to be presented to the Council for review, referral, or a vote on a resolution, will you please request a new practice for the City? It has been successful in the business world for many years. Price tags? Yes, put a price tag on every item that faces you. It will generate more fiscal data promptly as exhibits for your review than you receive today and focus your minds on the expenditure you are called to authorize. Would you vote on the $2 Million for Crescent Crossing without looking at what 84 units are likely to generate in City expense? Look at the way you routinely face resolutions with no warning of what the price tag may be and then are presented with pressure to move the item to a vote because somebody else has calendar pressure. Set yourselves up for success as a City body and earn the respect of the voters you represent and the taxpayers who do not feel your watchdog work. Time will tell.

0
Share

18 comments

  1. The schedule as set forth in the City Charter just does not work NOW nor will it work in the future. Obviously, that cannot be changed now. I have absolutely no idea how the B&A subcommittee or the full City Council can get their hands around a budget in a scenario I would call a CRISIS. Personally speaking, it’s difficult for me to get to these meetings due to my work schedule. I tried to go to the Library Board meeting last night and could not even get to that. What a mess at the Library (according to an article in the CT POST). It is now April 28 and decisions are needed to be made within days and I have NO CONFIDENCE anyone knows what’s going on. Of course we are focusing on the budget and the mil rate, but in the process we are losing sight of all the implications of the bomb that really set this all in motion–THE BILLION DOLLAR DROP IN THE GRAND LIST.

    0
  2. How would you put a price tag on something like the 84 units as mentioned by JML? Sure, there are the costs that can be easily measured (City, State, Federal, Private Investment), BUT part of the quotient is revenues generated by residents of these units in terms of money they may spend in Bridgeport. If you don’t have a number for that, then the analysis is wrong. For some reason, there is an analysis theory being used here frequently that ONLY adds up the incidental costs of a project (the cost to school any children, water and sewage costs, extra police and fire costs etc.). Without a doubt, analyzing these costs will help you to create a “price tag” but not including ALL revenues generated would result in an inaccurate price tag. Some people here have been so focused on the cost factor if we follow their theory and extrapolate the results, it would behoove the City of Bridgeport to ask residents to MOVE OUT which would result then in less costs (less schools, less police and fire, less sewage to be treated, etc.).

    0
  3. Trivia question: name the Bridgeport politician who has NOT benefited from violating The City Charter. Since inception, it’s been a stepped-on, ripped-off, abused, avoided, neglected and politically unheeded document.

    0
    1. Which of the several violations of City Charter are you speaking about? Identifying them, even a few, would be informative to the reading public for sure.

      You may think this suggestion fanciful but a long-term Bridgeport politician in anyone’s book is Mario Testa. Does he fit the “not benefited from violating the City Charter” category? Curious for your definition and explanation. Time will tell.

      0
  4. And Frank the Cabana Boy is the WINNER!!!!!!!!!
    Frank wins an copy of the City Charter autographed by Former Mayors Bill Finch and Joe Ganim and future Mayor-NOT Tommy Mac.
    Frank also wins an all-expense-paid trip to Trumbull courtesy of Localized Travel.

    0
  5. Someone help me out here.
    This is from the CT Post
    “Harris floated the idea of getting the city’s fire headquarters out of its current building between Seaside Park and Black Rock, freeing up what he called a prime piece of waterfront real estate for redevelopment.”
    Isn’t the Fire HQ on the river downtown?
    What is this yokel talking about? And why is the Press Secretary making statements like this and Ganim’s Bonding Package?

    0
    1. Bob, placing fire headquarters where it is now was a dangerous and terrible idea because of the bridge and how it slows down the response time when the bridge was working and it could be up and now for over 25 years the bridge has not worked at all. Now putting it between Seaside Park and Black Rock is not a smart idea.

      0
  6. Conversation about NEW HQ, but no conceptual renderings, occurred last evening as B&A heard Fire, Public Safety and Emergency Operations Communications department budgets.

    Potential for Police, Fire, and Communications to operate someday from a single location? There are discussions.

    Of more immediate concern is the hurdle created for the Police Department, especially new Trainee classes, with no shooting range, and a variety of problems, some practical and other fiscal, this has created. Also grants and equipment for the shooting range on Howard Av proposed years ago, but subsequently “shot down” for proximity to school population are reaching expiration of extension this fall. How fast can we “draw” a new bead and move? Another example of Finch Administration haunting G2 with their management style: Aim, Fire, Ready? Time will tell.

    0
  7. *** Sit back and learn something from the firm you guys hired, also get an overall study from them after budget season. Anything more than that is over the council’s heads, no? *** WHOOP ***

    0
    1. I have returned from a four-hour visit with the Council B&A committee.
      *** Lots of questions about matters that should be addressed routinely, regularly, and systematically from Department metrics posted on Department web sites at least quarterly so that all Council members keep track of “hits, runs and errors”;
      *** Guess who was present for about 90 minutes? Former OPM Director Thomas Sherwood. We had no conversation though he did speak to one CC member for about 10 minutes as he departed. The major cause of the current 2016 budget and the difficulties carried into future years was his “obfuscation” of vital info that never let the Council members in on the real story.
      *** One example of this are the revenue flows from the City for Pension A, Pension B Police and Fire funding for those covered by that plan, and State MERS funding with the extra funding levels to provide extra retirement payouts for covered overtime.
      *** Meanwhile the Council members continue to study POLICE and FIRE budgets assuming (at the time I left) the Department expenses are respectively $53.6 MILLION AND $31 Million because they were only regarding Police and Fire administration divisions. Finance never bothers to total all of the division, and this year even left out the fiscal report for Narcotics and Vice. However, Police totals, (hand calculated approximate) $104 Million for Police and $65 Million for Fire.
      *** I have not attended every hour of every budget meeting this year. Just let’s say too many for the worth of what I learned new. However, where are the appropriate representatives from Boards, Commissions and groups that routinely know what is going on with recreation, parks, police matters, fire. Library may have had representation though I am not positive.
      *** I look to receive data that become Council B&A exhibits when I am there after all the Council members get them. Alas, it took until mid-meeting today to get agreement from President McCarthy, and Co-chairs Taylor-Moye and Burns that that would be hospitable, yet they never became available. Such are Council rules and the attitudes of some. And I must apologize because on occasion I ‘speak up’ out loud when I have info I think they seek for a brief moment and that is certain to disturb one or more members present. So, AmyMarie Vizzo-Paniccia, I apologize to you and your sensitivity to maintenance of Council rule, while my attempts to slice and dice City numbers and to share my time to taxpayer advantage is steadily ignored by too many.

      And what can you say about a few Council members who have made themselves absent or very scarce from the whole fiscal review process? How will they rationally vote on these matters? Time will tell.

      0

Leave a Reply