The financial scenario is ugly. Mayor Joe Ganim on Wednesday issued a distress letter to department heads that calls Governor Dan Malloy’s state budget cuts potentially “devastating.” Malloy is trying to close a nearly $1 billion projected deficit for the budget year starting July 1. Malloy axed, according to Ganim, $8 to $10 million in expected state aid from a municipal revenue sharing account funded through a portion of state sales taxes. These revenues were factored into the budget that Ganim submitted to the City Council. Ganim notified department heads in this letter, hoping the city’s rescued by the state legislature. If not, here comes a series of local cuts and potentially higher taxes in the July 1 bill.
As you may have heard by now, Governor Malloy yesterday released a revised budget for fiscal year 2017 starting July 1st of this year. Here is an article about this from the Connecticut Mirror:
As there is a projected $930 Million dollar shortfall and the Governor has proposed to close that deficit without raising any new taxes, this revised budget is not good news for Bridgeport or any large cities in Connecticut. While the governor’s proposal appears to hold firm on capping local car taxes at 32 mils and reimbursing municipalities for the loss in revenue related to that, it also drastically reduces the Municipal Revenue Sharing Account that was to be funded through a diversion of a small portion of state sales tax revenue.
The bottom line is with this revised budget proposal from the governor Bridgeport stands to lose $8-10 Million dollars in state aid that we were expecting as of July 1st. The potential impact of these cuts is devastating. It more than doubles our expected budget deficit for FY 2017. Based on these numbers, I have tasked OPM Director Nestor Nkwo, Finance Director Ken Flatto, and CAO John Gomes to come up with budget contingency cuts to help us balance the budget in this worst case scenario. It is not a pretty picture and we will let you know as soon as we can what we are proposing so you can get an idea where the municipal cuts may fall.
The good news, if there is any, is that our legislative delegation and House and the Senate leadership have indicated that they are strongly opposed to the governor’s proposed cuts to municipal aid. They have sent clear signals that they and their legislative caucuses will stand with Connecticut’s big cities and will not accept a plan that makes such drastic cuts to municipal aid. In the coming days we will seek meetings with legislative leadership–possibly together with the mayors of some of Connecticut’s other large cities–to plan a response to the governor’s plan and work on crafting an alternative that keeps municipalities whole.
I will let you know the progress on this as soon as possible but in the meantime we should all prepare for a worst case scenario. If you as Department Heads have any ideas on how we could achieve these savings in your department, I would welcome your input.
BUT JOE, THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED; RIGHT?
Back in charge. Fixing the city’s financial mess. The man with the plan.
Bingo!
www .ctpost.com/printpromotion/article/Park-fees-going-up-7242552.php
Time to sell some park land, Sacred Heart would pay anything for Veterans park on Park Ave. Or take a page out of Finch’s book, hide things and come up with a catchy slogan.
Such as, Joe Ganim Mayor, No surprise, it’s Bridgeport.
How is that going to help? A one-time windfall of cash, then NO taxes, minimal PILOT. Veteran’s Park is being used by thousands of residents, and these days, non-residents. It is in better shape than it has been in the last 50 years. This has come to little cost to the City because users are keeping it cleaner than it has ever been. The school and Museum use it for camps and playgrounds. Sacred Heart has lots of money because business is booming for Universities, let’s start charging them fees, if we can’t tax them.
They definitely should be taxed. However we could always retain ownership of any land and let the university pay a land-use fee. A SUBSTANTIAL land-use fee.
This would only be a drop in the bucket but it is becoming increasingly obvious City Taxpayers do not need to pay for the unnecessary services of Wilbur Chapman and Ed Adams. It would be nice to see the Office of the Mayor step forward with this but I doubt it. Hopefully, the City Council can get rid of these fluff positions and just forget about that Ethics Ordinance Ganim has proposed.
$182 million-plus in Education Aid and yet you still want more.
Unbelievable.
All we want is for the state to step up and fulfill its constitutional requirements.
But just like Teachers Pensions and other difficult requirements, they just keep kicking that can down the road.
Gabriel, how much do you think should be spent on 22,000 students? Study after study has shown the education of a child may have the most important part of their lifelong success, which includes employment, income, every measure of what we consider a successful adult life. The key to breaking the cycle of living in poverty is EDUCATION. Nothing is guaranteed but it remains the most important parameter. Gabriel, I will assume you don’t live in Bridgeport.
While these are 2013 numbers, national average per pupil spending was just over $6500, CT at just over $10k average.
www .courant.com/data-desk/hc-in-perpupil-spending-connecticut-ranks-high-20150602-htmlstory.html
One of the constant complaints heard around the city is the School is the place to load up patronage jobs. The CT Post ran an article where Testa claimed, or did not dispute, at least 70% of city jobs were from his recommendation. Of course if I were head of the DTC, I too would promote that power and accomplishment. Which of course only adds validity to the patronage jobs claim. I agree with you, good public education is one of the cornerstones to everyone’s success, the issue in Bridgeport has long been the control and allocation of school funds. Every candidate crystal, the children, what about the children, then seem to spend a lot of time infighting about who will be president, who follows Roberts Rules of order, which parent can serve on the advisory committee, rather than here is our budget, what grants have we applied for and what more is out there that we are missing, and how can we stretch every penny to help the students.
Maybe Joe Ganim will go to his best buddy Chuck Paris, and get $10 million dollars in concessions in the next contract.
BIG PICTURE: we’re screwed.
So the mayor of East Bridgeport has to deal with the rest of the City. SURPRISE.
It’s really a simple solution: tax the rich and raise the wage; however Malloy doesn’t want to raise taxes, so let’s propose a budget that will force municipalities to raise property taxes. SMH.
We should learn from Minnesota:
www .huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html
Frank, you should read this:
fee.org/articles/minnesota-mythbusting/
That Huffington Post article is dubious.
Not so simple. Property taxes and sales taxes are regressive taxes. The multi-billionaire who buys a gallon of milk pays the same tax the working poor pays when they buy a gallon of milk. Our taxing system was built as a progressive tax system. The greater the ability to pay taxes the greater the amount to pay, and that has been perverted by Reaganomics. The income tax returns us to the ability to pay more taxes depending upon income.
That is not actually true and there is no sales tax on food anyway. You would have to look at what the poor person and what the rich person buys. The guy who buys the Ruger Mansion on Battery Hill will pay significantly more taxes than the guy who buys a 1,200 square foot cape in Success Village.
BOE SPY, you win on the point of no taxes on food but that’s a minor concession. Of course there is a difference between what a poor and a rich person can buy but there is also a difference between what a poor or rich person can pay, and I mean specifically, taxes. Of course, the owner of the Ruger Mansion will pay more actual dollars than the cape in Success Village but our taxing system in the United States has been based not only what we actually pay but on what we are ABLE to pay. In other words, it is a progressive taxing system. It has been deemed FAIR that as a person’s ability to pay increases (in other words, they have more income), it is fair that the rate or percent of their income can and should be taxed higher than a lower income person. So, it is not the actual dollars they pay as you assert in your posting but it is the percentage of income that a person pays as tax that should play the role in different taxing rates. The most notable example that has been used is Warren Buffett. Buffett is one of the richest people in the world but he was shocked that, AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, he paid a lower tax percentage of his total income than his secretary and he thought that unbalance was NOT FAIR. There is no doubt, at some point, a certain level of taxes will be oppressive. Over the last 30 years with the conservative/trickle down taxing policies, we have the tax brackets and taxing percentage of income fall dramatically on higher income people. So we are left with the question of whether or not our taxing system is fair OR unfair. Bottom line, it is not the actual dollars in taxes that one pays but the percentage of income that makes the difference.
You see, I do not see it that way. I would support a flat tax. A poor person with two kids in public school uses a great deal more public services that a wealthy guy with private security and sends his kids to private school. Mr. Buffett may have donated heavily to charity. He paid a lower percentage than his secretary, not less monetarily. I would ask, at some point, regardless of how much you make, how much is a fair amount to pay? Should there be a cap on how much one person should pay? Is it fair a guy who uses no services other than the protection of the army should pay $10 million in taxes? These people did not get rich by accident. We all had the same chances. Here is a better explanation of the Buffett example showing the example is flawed.
taxfoundation.org/blog/common-misconception-about-lower-rate-capital-gains-and-dividends
It really is about what you did for yourself. We all had the same choices. Look at it this way. The United States had 2,886,200 millionaires in 2009, meaning about 0.9%. In 2002, 100 people per 100,000 were addicted to heroin but that number had doubled by 2013. So in 2013 300 out of 100,000 or 0.3% were heroin addicts. That means you are three times more likely to be a millionaire than a heroin addict. If you are neither it is due to the choices you made.
Frank. You’re sounding like a Sanders guy. Have some of the comments from anonymous suburban parasites benefiting from Bridgeport’s exploitation finally caused you to see the light?!
par·a·site, noun–a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
synonyms: hanger-on, cadger, leech, passenger;
City of Bridgeport proposed budget $560 mil. The amount projected to come from property tax $310.6 mil. The amount coming from anonymous suburbanites $249.4 mil (44.5%). Who has a parasitic relationship with whom?
Never mind the entities you constantly complain about serve mostly BPT residents. The sewage treatment plant serves more people from BPT than any other city. The North Ave jail, mostly BPT residents. The power plant, more BPT customers than any other city.
Just saying.
Remember, the Operating Budget does not report a good chunk of the grant revenues coming into the City. It is purposeful, but what is the purpose other than to keep the citizen in the dark?
For instance, there is probably $120 million more that would flow to the City ABOVE THE $560 MILLION MAYOR’s BUDGET in the 2017 budget (in addition to the ECS $$$ that are in the BOE budget as presented by the Mayor). What positions does all that money support? What projects that are Capital rather than Operating Budget oriented? Keep asking questions. Where would you be cutting the budget? Is there any evidence of City Council prioritizing items in the event cuts are necessary? Time will tell.
*** A week ago, the city was supposed to be safe from any State cuts. Now, it’s maybe $8 to $10-million State aid money for Bpt that’s going to be cut! “Assumed” money that was projected to be in the city’s budget that was turned over to the B&A Committee to review! How do you assume so much money into a projected city budget without assurances the money is really there? Especially when the State is also doing their budget and have been crying mass cuts, layoffs, etc. for months now, due to their Red Ink debts? But do not despair city taxpayers, the Bpt City Council’s B&A committee is on the job ready to tackle any financial Red Ink and return a clear fair balanced city budget back to Mayor Ganim. As well, also be ready to raise the city’s property mil rate up to about 50.9 from 42.9! So taxpayers get ready, there’s a raise a coming, you don’t need no fussing, you just get on board! *** WHOOP ***
As it was explained to me, the state budget is voted on after the Bridgeport budget. The assumption is the state will at least meet the previous PILOT. The statute for pilots seems to read, if the state has sufficient funds it will pay PILOTS. It is also a way for any mayor to cry and raise taxes because, well, the state.
Mojo,
It is a tale of two budgets!!!
One week ago the Governor was dealing with the $200 Million shortfall in the current 2016 budget, just as Mayor Ganim has been calling attention to the Finch-Sherwood budget debacle that left us facing a $20 Million shortfall.
In that instance the City including the BOE were not subjected to pain.
However, grabbing the initiative the Governor moved on to tackle the budget in formation for the two years after 2016 FY. And that is where the publicity making cuts are felt here in the City. So City Council needs to get out some sharp knives to prioritize. Maybe they will not need to use. But better prepared then left hanging with a requirement to deliver a balanced budget in early May with never any discussion of the relative priority of one department or program over another. Can we get a list of all employees whether currently funded by Operating or Grant revenues? Can we see the level of funds that go into special accounts to be protected for their mission, like the Lighthouse $850,000 from parent fees? Will someone explain how Police Administration (one of 10 subheading accounts within the Police Department budget presentation) has budget jumps from 2015 $27,455,025, 2016 $40,342,055 and in proposed 2017 $53,590,904??? How did the overall Police Department budget increase to over $100 Million? Why are we showing 478 filled positions in the Police presentation when the community is only too aware the actual number of police serving today is fewer than 350 officers??? Who will provide these answers? Time will tell.
*** WILL OUR CITY’S STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND STATE SENATORS FIGHT FOR BPT’S “ASSUMED STATE AID MONIES” OR WILL THEY TAKE THEIR USUAL YEARLY POLITICAL “DO LITTLE” STANCE UP AT THE STATE CAPITOL THIS YEAR? *** WHOOP ***
Bring back the tolls
I think the only way to Generate new revenue for the Cities of Bridgeport, Stamford, New Haven, Hartford, and Waterbury is to establish a joint venture with the State of CT. Each City will have its own toll stations on I-95 and I-84 with a 50/50 share of toll revenue with the State.
The average daily traffic through Bridgeport is approximately 160,000 cars and trucks @ $2 a toll will generate over a billion dollars a year, just in Bridgeport.
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island all have tolls with an EZ pass system. While Connecticut largest cities are in a frantic need of new revenues, I can’t see the Governor rejecting a Six City/State toll program for our major cities at this time. Let’s face it, we all hate tolls, the Flucking Garden State Parkway has tolls every 50 feet!
I think it’s time the Six Major Cities come together in this common cause, and instruct their legislative delegation to push for these toll programs at the State level ASAP.
With all the abandoned factories on the West Side of Bridgeport along I-95, we can kill two birds with one stone.
I was kidding about the billion dollars. NY tolls are over $10 for two axles.
Suggestions of NEW revenue sources is helpful. But who will look at the budget presented and begin to question the relative merits of departments in competition for tax revenues from local property or State income taxes? What is the Governor exhibiting by his activity in using the knife rather than searching for $$$? Do we have a take-away to use in the City at our operating budget time? Time will tell.
These are interesting times.
The City needs the current legislative delegation to stick together for Bridgeport and save funding and to do so when their elected positions are being challenged.
What is the motivation for the delegation to stick together as a whole and rescue the funding when challengers are lobbying support from (and getting it, I presume) the very constituencies that put them in office?
We all want and need to have folks in office who consider the job bigger than themselves. So what we need is for Gomes, Moore, Stallworth, etc. to not throw Bridgeport under the bus. But it’s perfectly okay for Bradley and McCarthy to do it, because running for each of them is all about revenge, pettiness and political climbing. These sitting legislators are much better people than I if they can compartmentalize those things.
BOE. You know nothing about economics, or you would factor in such things as opportunity costs into the Bridgeport taxation/budget question. You are obviously not equipped to analyze and comment about the complex economics involved in the consideration of compensation to urban centers for tax base losses/lifestyle decrement imposed upon them by affluent suburbs (via rigged development polices). Every time you anonymously post on this blog, you expose your ignorance and limitations.
Times are changing, BOE. The gravy train is derailing for you and those of similar mind(lessness).
Mayor Ganim,
It’s time to quit complaining and get to work. The state has serious financial problems and so does the City. And yet, your budget proposes to raise spending by over 5 percent!!! It also fails to significantly reduce overhead, eliminate unneeded positions, or restructure health care benefits. Get real or let a Financial Control Board do the job.
THIS CITY IS BANKRUPT. People keep on staring at this and that line in the budget as if we are looking at a standard situation. People have fallen into the trap about the $20 Million budget deficit just as Ganim and Flatto were hoping for. This City spends close to 700 million dollars per year. Revenues raised within the City are $250 million, give or take. So the REAL budget deficit is really 400 to 500 million dollars. Can anyone talk about this massive shortfall? 5% across the board cuts are a drop in the bucket. This continued discussion of the $20 million “Finch” deficit plays right into the hands of Ganim and Flatto. Can anyone talk about the $500 million deficit???
Frank,
I understand what you are talking about and it is a good subject, but when people cannot tell the difference between the two budget actions ongoing in Hartford, or the two budgets, current FY 2016 and Mayor proposed FY 2017, for starters, it will be hard for them to understand we are DEPENDENT, even though we are paying HIGH TAXES on real estate that has decreased in value (see the Grand List and revaluation results). We are DEPENDENT when at the end of a fiscal year we learn that Grants, Property Taxes, fines, fees, etc. allowed spending of around $700 Million in a Fiscal Year. This is reported in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year for which taxpayers spend over $200,000 but which recent administrations and recent City Councils see no need to hold public informational meetings where comments and RESPONSES are in order. A way for public learning? Time will tell.