The City Council’s Budget and Appropriations Committee Monday night will likely hear some sobering news from Ganim administration financial chiefs: a mid-year budget deficit of more than $10 million. The $532 million election-year budget advanced by former Mayor Bill Finch that was approved by the last City Council for the budget year starting July 1 is now about half complete. Some City Hall insiders say the deficit could be $15 million depending on a variety of factors.
On the campaign trail in 2007 Finch promised a dubious $600 tax cut that he quickly scrapped upon becoming mayor when he blamed John Fabrizi for leaving him a budget deficit of more than $10 million. Fabs did not seek reelection that year following revelations in the spring of 2007 he had sought leniency in court on behalf of a sexual offender who was friends with his son. Party regulars recruited Finch, then a state senator, to run for mayor.
Strategically, the best course of action for Mayor Joe Ganim is to get his arms around the current budget and announce the bad news as soon as possible so taxpayers know exactly how bad a budget he inherited from Finch. On the campaign trail Ganim pounded Finch for tax increases, asserting the only time Finch didn’t raise taxes was during his two reelection years. Bridgeport has a long history of sour election-year budgets.
The council’s budget committee chaired by Scott Burns and Denese Taylor-Moye is scheduled to meet Monday 6 p.m. in City Hall when it is expected city bean counters will formally start the process of revealing the bad news.
Addressing a budget deficit as mayor is not new to Ganim. Elected in November 1991, he inherited a budget deficit pegged at nearly $20 million from his predecessor Mary Moran whose bankruptcy petition was rejected by a federal court. At the time the city was operating under the thumb of the Bridgeport Financial Review Board with the task of ensuring city budgets were balanced. Ganim submitted a plan to the review board to close the deficit that included union concessions, sale of tax liens to a private company and other measures. He also received financial assistance from then-Governor Lowell Weicker following Ganim’s commitment he would withdraw the failed bankruptcy petition Moran had appealed.
CT Post scribe Brian Lockhart shares his take here.
In a memorandum to department heads, John Gomes, Ganim’s acting chief administrative officer, outlined new purchasing guidelines involving the mayor’s aides. Anything over $1,000 will need a final sign-off from the budget office, and expenses exceeding $2,500 require Gomes’ authorization.
Normally, department heads only have to deal with the purchasing office, and then the pushback comes only if the expense reaches $7,500 or above and has not been put out to bid as required.
“The mayor is asking all of us to prepare for all possible contingencies in order to keep the finances of the city in balance,” Gomes wrote. “While we gauge the fiscal pressures facing the city over the next 60 days, the (administration has) determined that we need to ensure all current expenditure requests are necessary and essential to the day to day operations of the city.”
This is not a surprise. JML has been telling us this for years. The council for the past five years has shown no interest in protecting the taxpayers, the only interest they have shown is passing every budget basically as submitted. All 20 council people from last year back were worried about kissing Finch’s ass no matter the cost to the taxpayers. They passed budgets that showed $4 to $5 million in ghost workers salaries and benefits, we never knew where the money went. Here is a closing gift from Tom Sherwood to outgoing councilmen Marella a $15,000 check that had none of the proper review. Is this how easily checks were written under Finch? The council shared the same responsibilities as Finch. I can’t wait to see the new B & A committee roll over for Ganim and again screw the taxpayer.
A fifteen million dollar deficit is pretty close to what DeParle and Finch gave away in property tax breaks since the 2008 revaluation.
This deficit could be the deal breaker for city council president McCarthy.
Damned if he knew, damned if he didn’t! A new broom sweeps clean!
Sounds as though Ganim is taking the bull by the horns, so to speak, flipping the beast over to show where Finch seared his brand.
The reval hasn’t happened yet. There’s still time for Ganim’s people to include foreclosed and distressed properties. That would go some way toward lowering everyone’s taxes. Hiring a priest to vanquish all the ghost employees is also a good idea.
If this is true, Mayor Ganim needs to figure out what spending to cut. Better to start sooner versus later.
The ghost money is what will change Finch from calling Ganim a felon to Ganim making sure Finch is a felon, I know a lot of people in blue unis who’d love to be the one who tightens the cuffs on the Birdman’s wrists.
A new mayor takes office and discovers a $10 million budget problem. Ain’t that a surprise. Not that I am suggesting there is no problem, but isn’t this the way it normally goes? Last mayor left a huge problem. Taxes are going to have to go up; don’t blame me, blame Finch.
Let’s start with blaming the Council President. He oversaw the budget process for the last eight years. He just appointed new budget chairs with little or no real accounting experience. Unless you want to count Denese’s experience on the committee that passed the $10 million problem.
This truly is a cluster fuck. Who is going to do what first?
I smell a shitload of layoffs. Let’s start with the police dept. assistant chief $110,000, four useless deputy chiefs at $100,000 and benefits (cars/gas/medical) and you’ve got the first $1,000,000.
If only these were the days of tar and feathers. Bridgeport has a bird who needs a few feathers!
*** Most budget issues go through the city council who are known to rubber stamp everything the admin. brings before them. Why? Mainly a push from the council president who would promise Finch anything; and second, the council is in over their heads on most financial agendas. Look at the co-chairs for some of the committees! *** WHOOP ***
Mojo, great point that you have been saying for some time but this is nothing new because those council members don’t want to have the head of the DTC, their district leader, the council president and the mayor getting mad at them for voting against something those in power want and for that vote or votes they end up having a primary, nobody wants a primary because that means work, time and money and lack of support from those in power to help them to get re-elected.
Ron, that’s the perception the chair of the DTC, the District Leaders and the Council President, although I don’t know what sway the CP has once he/she leave the chambers, they want that perception to be reality, but it’s not. Simple thought, if you want to sit on the CC, or be a member of the DTC, don’t take a City job. If you want a City job, stay the heck away from the inner politics. Help the candidates with their politic endeavors, and if you’re rewarded with a job, that should be enough. But greed always seems to win out; I remember the days when a job was enough. Not today, there’s so much duplicity and no one seems to care. For years I’ve been encouraging capable, honest individuals to become a part of the TC. So it’s a little work, and you may lose, but you may also win and get a seat at the table where you can make a difference.
Supposedly Himes hooked Wood up with the Clinton Campaign.
On another note, thanks to Finch and his band of merry men making sure departments’ budget money was shifted by Sherwood into the “slush” fund, the unions will be told to furlough again, meaning people making $35,000 and living paycheck to paycheck will be paying for the sins of Finch along with us taxpayers and the rest of the unions.
*** To get on the local town committee, city council, etc. you have to be lucky, or better yet know somebody who’s got a little juice. And once you’re on, you’re at the mercy or control somewhat of the district leader, DTC chair or Mayor if you have a city job. Once on should you begin to show some political independence, it’s just a matter of time before you’re not re-endorsed by your district town committee and left to run your own primary to try to get the endorsement. If you have little backing or come from a district that does not vote much or is not aware of the political goings-on, then you’re done for the most part though there have been exceptions at times! I would say 50% of the registered voters in Bpt nowadays don’t buy or read the daily newspaper or really know what’s going on in their city unless it’s on the TV! It’s funny, folks who live outside Bpt know more of the goings-on than its own residents in some city districts. *** SAD ***
Mojo, I know how discouraging it can be trying to motivate independent people to form a TC slate, but it can be done. The District Leader is merely a title given to a TC member. He/she has no more authority or importance than the other eight members. As for the Chair of the DTC, you don’t have to be bullied by he/she, you hold that seat you own your vote. It’s work, and sometimes you have to keep trying, but it can be done. It’s an important entity and reflects, or should reflect, the voters of your district. You’re a good man, and smart, I served with you and told you that many times. Don’t give up!!!
*** Thanks Lisa, many of the things I learned or way of thinking to vote on city agendas at times, I own to you who was was a great help to me, a freshman city council person. You certainly opened my eyes to many on-going city issues and info. that was not always available to all council members. You’re a great public speaker and always seem to know exactly what questions to ask at the right time. I thought you and Bob made a great city council team, no doubt! Members like you guys are what’s needed today on the council instead of the rubber-stamp bunch the city has now! ***
While there certainly are quite a few million dollars that can be saved by “streamlining” the various departments, even if the current “budget deficit” is 100% reconciled, our municipal needs will still fall short by many millions of dollars. Just bringing the police and fire departments up to optimal levels while bringing salaries and benefits up to competitive levels (including covering future city pension and health care benefits) will require annual city budgets topping the current budget by perhaps as much as the current deficit. Not to mention trying to properly fund our public school system.
So; while squeezing the city budget as hard as possible for savings is certainly a necessity, we also have to develop tens of millions of dollars in new revenue sources in short order (in terms of city budget years).
We have to develop/recruit high-value businesses/tax base quickly, and in a big way, and we also have to start charging all entities that use our services and infrastructure for the costs incurred by the city in that regard. These entities would include all not-for-profits that don’t account for their presence in Bridgeport through their contributions to the social welfare of the residents of Bridgeport (or other, in-kind contributions. This would include private institutions of higher learning, etc.), as well as for-profit businesses that don’t account for their use of city services and infrastructure and which otherwise degrade the tax base of the city (e.g., polluting power plants, incinerators, waste storage/transfer operations, et al.).
Of course, part of the resolution of our fiscal dilemma involves holding the state accountable for their responsibility to the city in regard to full compensation for PILOTS-classified entities in Bridgeport, as well as for their rightful contribution to Bridgeport’s public schools.
As has been indicated previously; Bridgeport’s taxable grand list is about $7 billion, while (just for the sake of an appropriate comparison) Stamford’s taxable grand list is about $24 billion. Both cities are in Fairfield County, with Bridgeport’s population exceeding Stamford’s by about 25,000. Bridgeport must drastically increase its grand list, in short order, if it is ever to become a stable, socioeconomically viable municipality again.
Bass Pro and the “Eco-technology Park” are obviously not going to do it for us.
We must pursue the high-value, living-wage job avenue of reindustrialization (albeit in 21st-Century terms) if we are ever going to capture municipal health and prosperity again.
A good start would be to eliminate all Deputy positions. I ran a government organization (i.e., GAO) that had over 10 times more employees than the City of Bridgeport with one Deputy position who was my COO. It’s time to streamline and simplify City Government.
That would mean getting the maximum bang for the minimum buck. Employing individuals at the top of the food chain who are fully qualified on paper and via work experience, for more than one position, is one way to approach this goal. There are myriad more tactical ways to streamline process and personnel, many would be unpopular, but this city is in dire straights.
The BOE apparently needs to re-assess a few processes as well. It does not appear the top professionals in core and key positions have a status update to the Superintendent deliverable mandated by their job descriptions. Simple thing to attach a status update mandate to each project that has been written into yearly performance goals.
Seems there is a fair amount of interest in priorities from both City and BOE. Priorities that can be stated as department missions with objectives that can be measured, regularly throughout a year; posted perhaps on a City departmental website; and that includes action items that are vital to the City that are signs of effectiveness.
Take a look at past budget requests and info submitted by departments and you will see that there is little change from year to year. Not a sign of study or applying research and approaches working elsewhere or even seeming to care what you post, since you know deep down that is watching. An exercise that complies with a Charter requirement for the creation of an operating budget but not one that ties fiscal support (appropriations) to results of dollars spent (expenses). Why not? Time will tell.