City financial watchdog John Marshall Lee shares his latest observations about the city budget and how the City Council addresses a potential tax increase in an election cycle. From General Lee:
I heard a rumor this week. It concerns another proposed property tax increase this year for Bridgeport taxpayers. The Finch administration is preparing to propose its 2013-14 City budget by March 1. Perhaps they are working on it and having trouble funding all of their expenses? Perhaps some expenses exceeded budget approved last year? Or perhaps the 2011-12 fiscal year closed with a deficit and not a surplus, but how would we know until we see the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report due before December 31, 2012.
Today I have discovered the Mayor’s letter is dated December 21, 2012, but did not find its way to the City Clerk office (or to the Finance Department web site listing) until January 28, 2013. Be sure to read this report.
Returning to word of the tax increase rumor: it seems some of the City Council members have been alerted to this coming taxpayer disturbance and they are not pleased. They have to run for office again in the fall of 2013. At first I envisioned Rip van Winkle awakening in Sleepy Hollow after 20 years (we had a Financial Review Board then) to 2013 when financial information is late regularly, is not easily available electronically to all citizens and is not discussed in public forums by and with the elected representatives of the people. Then I realized Rip van Winkle provides a wrong image.
Instead picture an Indian fakir residing on a bed of nails, who rapidly sits up. Will the bed of nails (the pointed reactions of voters to another tax hike in a City Council election year) suddenly become uncomfortable? Take a look at what is up in the fiscal air at this moment in the City:
• The CAFR and comments from the external auditor in the Management Letter (whose comments and responses by the City have not been public for four years)! Decrease in unrestricted and unreserved City Fund Balance? Over $10 Million in City departmental expenditures in excess of budget?• Tax collections in the City for January are running true to budget? Or not? Why is the City Council being asked to authorize $110 Million of Tax Anticipation Notes again?
• City Council election in the fall, but also the posting as of October 1, 2013 of property revaluations at a time when residential values have decreased. How high will the Mil Rate need to rise with a stagnant Net Grand List?
• Who is performing any oversight, monitoring or watchdog duty regarding City spending? Does anyone care?
There’s more to see if you look at the data. Have you spoken with your Council Representative lately? What do they have to say about how wide you need to open your wallet this coming year? Time will tell.
Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion are just too afraid to look behind the curtain at this time, Mr. Lee.
Hey we’re still trying to get rid of the massage parlors Lap Dance Marty wants to keep in Black Rock.
The Tin Man wants to raise our taxes again; no brains!
This was going to be a revaluation year for all taxpayers.
Our property values have tanked to the lowest in 5 years.
Now how the fluck can Finch, and this half-assed City Council justified any tax increase!
Fluck,
One reason for tax increases is you generate expenses (that you thing are more important to meet) than your vigilance and activity to control expenses. And there are budgeting techniques (like presenting, defending and getting the City Council to approve) extra funds in department budgets for employees, as an example, that we have called “ghost expenses” because no employee is ever hired to receive that funding. It gets spent elsewhere as a matter of fact.
We have noted the Finch administration took a knife to the 51000 line item across over 50 departments in September 2012 to reduce Full Time Earned Compensation by $3,600,000. The noise you heard was Casper, and other ghosts, sighing as they left the confined of the Annex into the ether. Now the money the budget called for from the taxpayer was still appropriated and will likely get spent somewhere. But you have to keep your eye on where expenses are likely to be higher, or new, as to where the “ghost expenses” will reside in this year’s budget.
As an example the CAFR for 2011 on page 35 indicated “the following line items overexpended their appropriations” and then listed 16 departments for total OVERexpenditure of $5,139,359. The largest was Miscellaneous (how clever with no further detail?) that used 70% of the overexpenditures followed by BOE debt service at $428,804 and police department at $285,305.
Contrast that with this year’s report on page 34 of the CAFR. “During the year ended June 30, 2012, the following line items had overexpended appropriations:” followed by 26 departments totaling over $11,444,000 including the Police department for $4,483,568, Miscellaneous for $2,890,223, City Attorney for $1,315,951, Fire Department for $1,181,784, Emergency Operations for $401,167 and Transfer Station for $221,061.
Can you see why I have emphasized the June monthly report that finally arrived last year, but which instructed us not to rely on it until the CAFR is received? Who was monitoring the spending last year? If you look for evidence in the minutes of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, did you find any? What do those City Council members say as your representatives? Can you see why I call on you to review, learn, inform yourself and confront those who are taking up space on the Council with little or no value? Ask the Finance Department where the narratives are for variances in the reports. Ask them why they fail the Charter language monthly. What do they say? Time will tell.
As usual, John Lee is on target with his remarks. Unfortunately, his expectation this city council could understand its oversight role is unrealistic. This group of people lacks the necessary relevant work experience, knowledge, academic credentials, leadership, common sense, ethics, integrity, independence, courage, commitment, ability, etc., etc.
The approach being taken by Jack Hennessy is a start. Yes, time will tell.
Tom White, you have listed a number of very important characteristics we should ALWAYS look for in those who seek our vote and they are: relevant work experience, knowledge, academic credentials, leadership, common sense, ethics, integrity, independence, courage, commitment and ability; but we don’t here in Bridgeport.
Hey Sue and Marty! It’s been two years. It’s time to asphalt my street again.
*** That probably would depending on what they can get politically in return, no? *** GET THE RUBBER STAMP READY ***
*** Besides, now that B. Curwin is gone from the B&A committee who’s left who really knows the budget “well?” Maybe one or two members at most (McCarthy); it will be obvious come budget season no doubt! If ever there were a time to hire an outside independent agency to assist in working on the city budget it’s “now!” Remember they don’t have Tom White anymore to concentrate and do the preparation and research anymore, etc. Could it be any worse than before; as JML would say, time will tell! ***