Sipping Port–Who Has Authority Over Waterfront?

The Bridgeport Port Authority is one of those city agencies that doesn’t receive a lot of attention, but administers some influence over the waterfront. City fiscal observer John Marshall Lee Monday night reminded the City Council of the authority’s historic role while raising questions about fiscal oversight.

The Seal of the City prominently shows a three-masted sailing vessel and the water and bridges emblematic of our port, one of only three deep water ports in CT. Let’s look at the “port” of Bridgeport rather than “bridge history” for a change and see what has been happening behind the scenes.

Actually the State of CT owns the “port” because the land under the water is technically the “port” while the land above water’s edge is Bridgeport property and owned by whoever has title to the property. In 1992 the City of Bridgeport created the first Port Authority (PA), a separate and distinct body from the City itself under State law and sponsored a Commission that has State-conferred powers. The Mayor appoints members (3) in addition to (2) automatic City department heads from OPED and Harbormaster.

Everyone has heard the economic advice “buy low” and “sell high” as a path to success. Unfortunately, the minutes of the Port Authority have not been accompanied by financial records along with minutes for the past decade during which “back office financials” have been taken over by City officials. I attended an August 2016 PA meeting with a written critique of this practice, included in those Minutes after reading minutes of that time. At the meeting I asked Tom Gill whether he, as a former banker and corporate board member, found it unusual for a body to have no financial records available for such a long historical period at each meeting. Millions at risk? Millions borrowed? Waterfront property?

At the most recent PA meeting, January 2019, Ken Flatto, City Finance Director included a financial summary report that was not included with the minutes when the board voted to adjourn. Allegedly, the Summary purported to be the record of the Port Authority from (1) a time when the Carpenter/Derecktor property was acquired by the PA, continuing through a period (2) when other funds were granted to the PA and spent by the PA to remediate, enhance and develop the site, and to the point (3) where most of the PA property has been sold. Without footnotes, backup documents and more fully explained comments the Summary fails to provide a comprehensive and accurate public accounting, in my opinion.

Period 1. PA was attempting to purchase Carpenter Tech for $2.5 Million with the power of Eminent Domain. Ganim1 stepped up to ask if the deal could be settled by adding $6.8 Million to the offer for a total of $9.25 Million. (Where did the money to close the deal come from fully accounted for in a Funding Agreement as was the initial $2.5 Million? Where are appraisal documents at each step of purchase or sale? What do documents from that time to Ganim say as to professional advice?

Period 2. An additional $6.4 Million was spent for improvements between the Ganim1 offer and title closings in 2017 and late 2018 increasing the “base” for accounting purposes to more than $15 Million.

Period 3. The City of Bridgeport sold all of the remaining PA land during 2017 and near the close of 2018 except where the Water Street office sits for the sum of $10.7 Million. Do you view this as an example of “buy high” and “sell low?” Or is it a loss of more than $5 Million? How does Ganim2 financial and operational management of our port and property look today?

Why hasn’t the voice of the PA, with independent legal and accounting representation for the PA itself, been heard including a formal audit for the PA? Ganim2 when he came into office in 2016 did not question the OPED payoff of a $930,000 note to Titan Capital. Why not? If the funds came from bonded funds that the City Council gets no regular reporting on and which is targeted per each bond indenture to specific use? And today, the 2017 and 2018 closings under Ganim2 seem to complete yet another lousy deal for the City taxpayer. Where are the appraisals? Where are the closing documents? Legal expenses paid should show all opinions at each step of the way. Shouldn’t actions receiving informed approval by unconflicted and independently appointed PA members with full financial representations available to them and included in Authority minutes and records be the order of the day? Time will tell.

Share

4 comments

  1. Waterfronts can be mysterious or just plain misty/foggy. Actually except in stormy weather there are no waves to rule, are there? But when you get your feet on land, it is not the Coast Guard that will be asking questions, but that same old reliable group of Federal employees who are curious about the money issues. Land in the port area seems to have been slow to develop, but since pieces of the overall property are under more central control and the prices paid are for the most part favorable to buyers, someone who wonders why property got sold for prices overall less than acquisition and maintenance costs may ask more questions. When the sun comes out after storms or poor visibility, so many questions pop up. Time will tell.

    1. Questions always represent things I do not know. That’s why I avoid them. The internet, cell phones and acquired knowledge are making questions obsolete giving rise to statement-based conversations. You cannot impress people with your questions. Statements rule!
      In a related story, waves are water’s close friend.
      Grab a surfboard!

  2. Incredible that only Local Eyes, the inscrutable writer from afar, who avoids questions because “they always represent things I do not know”. There is another actual school of thought which suggests that we “Live the question(s).” When we do, we may learn things we did not know previously and bring us to a higher plane of living.
    Statements Rule????? Only from the Twitter account of autocratic 45. And slowly but surely the questions he has failed to consider personally, those that the House Intelligence Committee did not allow to surface by aborting normal procedure, and the ones that arise from contrasting testimony putting individuals in jeopardy of lying to the Feds and soon we all shall be more knowledgeable about the questions we failed to consider earlier.
    Valuable waterfront property was acquired over multiple administrations and maintained or improved with additional funds, and then is sold for less money. People’s property? People’s funds? Any more to show competency as stewards or has the process been fixed since the beginning to lose value for the people of the City? Why are readers so silent? Time will tell.

Leave a Reply