Mayor Bill Finch on Monday submitted his budget proposal to the City Council for the spending year beginning July 1. David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General, attended the council meeting and files these observations.
This evening, the City Council voted to refer Mayor Finch’s proposed budget for the fiscal year July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014 to the Budget and Appropriations Committee but there was not a budget document for either the Council or public to see. His budget will include three scenarios. In addition, the Mayor made it clear he is proposing additional employees, higher spending, and yet another property tax increase under all three scenarios. As a result, for the second straight year, Mayor Finch has failed to live up to his re-election promise to “hold the line on taxes.”
Over the past few weeks I have found that many people are confused about how property taxes are determined and how Bridgeport’s tax burdens compare to other cities. The two most important factors in determining your property tax bill are the city’s spending, after considering state and federal grants, and the total value of taxable property in Bridgeport (the so-called “Net Grand List” value). In order to “hold the line on property taxes,” the city has to manage its budget in a fiscally responsible manner and promote economic development to grow the Net Grand List. The Finch Administration has not been effective at doing either which is why the Mayor is now asking for another tax increase.
Some people have expressed the belief that a new reassessment would, by itself, result in higher tax bills. Such is not necessarily the case. While lower assessed values would, given the same sized city budget, result in a higher mil rate, it would not necessarily result in a higher tax bill. Many people do not realize that the mil rate is a plug number. It is determined by dividing the amount of the city’s budget by the value of the Net Grand List. As a result, the size of the city’s budget is the biggest factor in determining the dollar amount of your property tax bill.
A lower assessed value for your property will, absent commensurate reductions in the mil rate, result in you paying a higher percent of the value of your property in annual taxes. This percentage represents your “effective tax rate” and Bridgeport is among the highest in the country at about 2.9 percent based on current assessments. This compares to a 1 percent limit in California, an approximate 1.7 percent average in Connecticut, and a 2.5 percent limit in Massachusetts (also known as Taxachusetts).
On the other hand, increased property values can allow the mil rate to be reduced and raise the same amount of money. It can also help to make the city more attractive to businesses and individuals.
Raising property taxes again would serve to raise rents, reduce the fair market value of existing properties and further reduce the attractiveness of Bridgeport as a place to live and do business. This is exactly the opposite of what the Finch Administration and any future Administration should be trying to do.
Property taxes have increased dramatically under the Finch Administration. A major increase occurred in 2009 based on the 2008 revaluation which was not coupled with an adequate reduction in the mil rate to “hold the line on taxes.” The second came last year, allegedly for education, but much of the increase was actually used for things unrelated to education. This included a significant pay raise for the Mayor and a number of senior City managers, including the President of the City Council, when median household income was declining in Bridgeport.
Rather than buckling down and making needed changes to transform City government, the current Administration is full of excuses. The federal and state governments are cutting back and it’s time for Bridgeport to do so too. The Finch Administration has not made a concerted effort to dispose of certain properties (e.g, airport), cut city spending, reduce regulatory burdens, revise contracting practices, right-size the city’s workforce, modernize employment practices, and restructure the city’s benefit programs, especially retiree health benefits. All of these actions and more are necessary.
The City Council is supposed to be a check and balance on the Mayor. It is also supposed to protect the interests of the city’s taxpayers. Given the current state of affairs and the short period of time the City Council has to act, it should ask Mayor Finch to submit a single City budget that makes reasonable assumptions about federal and state aid, constrains spending, does not raise taxes, and does not borrow to fund operating costs. All these actions are necessary to help create a better Bridgeport.
City Council members have a tough job to do and limited time to do it. I feel for them and want them to succeed. Mayor Finch and his Administration officials have not treated them fairly or with the respect they deserve. Based on the Administration’s approach and rhetoric, they seem to be trying to fool both the Council and the citizens of Bridgeport. As a result, a number of qualified and concerned Bridgeport citizens, including myself, are willing to help the City Council discharge its important and challenging responsibilities. All they have to do is ask.
Some of us went to this meeting and it was an eye opener. I have to say the Council Persons from the 132nd district REALLY did our city proud. Many thanks to John Olson and Evette Brantley for PROUDLY representing Brooklawn and the City. You asked the right questions and restored some of our faith for sure. And Andre Baker? You are righteous as always.
And don’t get me started on our after party … you know who you are … 🙂
Mayor Finch’s budget is a job killer.
www .youtube.com/watch?v=zpnvkga-X-g
Here we go again with Walker and his ego. Sounds like a stalking horse for privatization. Yeah Walker, the state and federal govt are cutting back and they are cutting back on things they shouldn’t be cutting back on like infrastructure improvements that will boost trade and medical care for those who can’t afford it that will cut costs in the long run because it will keep people out of the emergency room, and a lot of these cutbacks are necessary because of tax breaks that went to upper income people like yourself that never should have been made.
BlackRockGuy, I’m in total agreement with you and I feel he is more than a stalking horse for privatization, time will tell.
BlackRockGuy and Ron Mackey–Do you live and pay taxes in Bridgeport? If you do please explain your comments above. As a taxpayer I find David Walkers comments informative and those of us who live in Bridgeport need much more information about how our local government works. I have lived here for eight years and what I have observed makes me question if our elected officials really represented the taxpayers.
I have lived here for over 30 years, a lot longer than you or Mr. Walker. Mr Walker knows very little about this city. Read about his tenure at GAO … he does not play well with others and I think he would love to see city services cut … just as long as they don’t in HIS neighborhood which is populated by the well heeled. I like everyone else was upset at the poor performance of the city snow removal … but he carried on at the meeting like an eight-year-old and he seems to think we should bow down to his every word. People like Walker want austerity budgets as long as THEY are not affected by it. Read about the people being affected by the sequester which is an overreaction to a deficit problem nationally which will somewhat solve itself but has been overexaggerated by people like Walker who would like this country to go back to the 19th century when the poor stayed poor.
I thought that was a good overview and an interesting write-up. Especially the part about the impact on affordable housing. About 60% of the city’s residents are renters, many with low to moderate incomes. Additionally, most of these properties are greater than 20 years old. Higher taxes will only mean higher rent and less property reinvestment by thousands of already absentee landlords.
Seeing as our neighboring towns have all but assured Bridgeport must bear the burden of housing the low to moderate income population by their lack of affordable housing developments, there’s no end in sight to our fiscal woes.
We can nickle and dime the budget to cut services and municipal employment, but until a meaningful and long-term strategy is instituted to address lack of economic development, over-population, absentee landlordism and a host of other issues we will be revisiting the oppressive tax burden every year.