The City Council Monday night approved a budget with a modest tax increase in an election year. Let’s see who steps up to challenge the all-Democratic legislative body. This budget approval, however, comes with a gigantic gulp. It’s based on a number of assumptions, including millions in state revenue that must survive the state budget process underway in Hartford.
The budget the council passed for the spending year starting July 1 includes $2 million in city employee concessions Mayor Bill Finch must secure in lieu of layoffs. But what if all the anticipated state revenue built into the budget disappears? Ouch! Hide the whiskey bottles. It places the burden on the mayor to cut even deeper.
Such is the case when part of the city’s budget is a slave to the state.
Leonard,
You misspoke when you said:
The council vote was 18-2 with Andre Baker and Michelle Lyons voting against. They perhaps did not realize a no vote meant they preferred Finch’s higher-tax proposal, such is the parliamentarian procedure once the budget committee issues its recommendation. The mayor’s budget becomes the default spending plan for the opposition.
The final vote on the budget is not only not necessary but improper. Since increases must be approved by a 2/3 majority, what would it mean if a final vote on the budget was approved 11-9 but it included increases in revenue and expenditures?
I often asked that question when I was on the council and no one could ever give a direct answer. I believe this final vote came about when Fabrizi was Council President and he had hoped after everything else was complete there would be a unanimous vote of approval.
When my colleagues on the council would ask me what would happen if the council actually voted against the B & A amendments I would simply urge them to do as I do and le’s see what would happen. You can be sure immediate votes to reconsider would be ruled in order, the items tabled and then, and only then, would serious budget negotiations take place.
Okay Troll, but what if the Budget and Appropriations Committee budget referral is defeated? The mayor’s budget kicks in, such are the rules of engagement presented to council members. Then the council is really screwed. I guess from a public relations standpoint Baker and Lyons could say, I don’t like this budget, I don’t like the mayor’s budget so this is a vote against all budgets. If the public’s to have any real voice in the process they must weigh in on the committee level, not the entire council level.
My rule of engagement was get me the votes to defeat any one of the amendments and then the fun would have begun.
The city would quickly engage in meaningful changes to the budget and the budget process.
I applaud Mr. Baker because I know his vote is sincere and born out of years of frustration. I know when I served with him he would be asking for additional information that would never materialize.
As to Ms. Lyons looking to support the overtaxed residents AND her fellow union members, that one does not pass the smell test.
It would make sense for the FBI to investigate the Finch administration for misuse of public funds. He’s added so many stupid people to the payroll …
Lennie,
Let’s get real. The public has no voice, real or otherwise in the process at the committee level! There is no public speaking (or more relevant chance for public to be heard by dumbfounded CC members) at Committee meetings generally. Only when there is a PUBLIC HEARING like the budget or on Ordinances, etc. So the public cannot weigh in on the Committee level, and notice how the President of the Council keeps a relentless questioner like Andre Baker off the B&A group? It is not an accident.
Last night when Sue Brannelly presented her “thoughts” for the future she mentioned her initiative to have the MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS as standing items on the B&A agendas. She did that. She certainly did that and I noticed it and commended her for that serious move.
But what has it meant since July 1, 2012? Monthly reports that are formatted differently than under the Dawn Norton regime. They are harder for CC to understand and to determine what is happening. They are coming at least one month after the one month allowed by the Charter. Therefore each report is in violation of the Charter. And Sue B., how many hours has the Council spent on overview in the past nine months, would you guess? Let me mention the net $3.6 Million variances on Line Item 51000 since the September report or the continuing excess expenditures on Police Overtime going on 22 months now, for two examples. Where are the discussions in your minutes? Where are the requests for more info? How do you gather more info for study on a global basis? Will the Council have time to ask David Walker to come in to address your group or will you use one Council person as a filter to carry his message?
If I seem less than respectful of your hard work, I have attended your meetings over the past several years and watch you feast before you do your hard work, no big problem, but you do not advertise your down time publicly. And your meetings should be about business. Start on time. Call for recess. Demand quorums. You get appropriate respect, public and personal, when you live by those standards.
As long as we are looking to next year when will someone read the Charter and hold a public hearing on the Capital Budget before voting on that budget? Time will tell.
Again, I would urge OIB readers to send a quick email to Councilman Baker. A short and sincere Thank You. He will be accused of grandstanding, recklessness, ignorance, betrayal and many other things.
I can assure you Andre has thick skin and the best interests of the city at heart, but some Thank Yous from strangers and not even constituents would be truly appreciated.
I learned him good. And I am proud of his actions.
(203)334-3876 Res.
Andre.Baker@bridgeportct.gov
Hard work (for those not used to it), lots of hours spent in service to whom, without proper info from the City and without independent taxpayer-focused advice to serve as a real governance check and balance.
REVENUE INCREASES: From the Mayor’s budget were provided by 70% from assumptions that the Legislature will provide. Another 20% of the $11.6 Million use LoCIP funds that are most often used to fund NEW CAPITAL Projects with funds from the State. In this case the City has sought permission to apply such funds to repay principal on debt that we already owe. No new projects.
REVENUE DECREASES: 70% of these are on taxes that do not need to be raised as high as the Mayor indicated. The other 30% seem to follow new info from the State.
APPROPRIATION INCREASES: City attorney category change and an adjustment to Library budget for increase in Mil. No hard work here. (Actually the hard work is by the Library to create new jobs in the City Library system. We are in the third year of various City side hurdles that must be overcome before new employees can be hired preventing the Library from carrying out their intentions to extend hours and services. So they end up spending 90% of City allocation and City keeps 10% and spends it elsewhere, IN DEFIANCE OF VOTER DIRECTIONS, while the Library Board is too polite to complain. And the City is too habituated to corrupt practice (failing to provide a Final June 30 report when they are able to, which would indicate where funds not spent in one line item are actually spent in others.) If you do not like the word corrupt, OH FINANCIAL GURUS, what would you like to call it: Inaccurate? Incomplete? Lazy? Maintenance of secrets? It is not ACCOUNTABLE!!!
APPROPRIATION DECREASES: A total of $3,164,962 is all. Last year and the year before, the elimination of all “ghost positions” and fringe benefits would have totaled around $10 Million. Keeping salary increases for the non-Union, attempting to introduce a new life insurance and disability plan under Labor Relations budget with no commentary for Goals, just the title Other Services!!! That’s a good catch by the group, but an easy one when you ask the questions. Shame on the administration to attempt new benefits, for whom? At a time when money is very tight and now $2 Million of compensation decreases must be sought? Hard questions the third time around regarding the Airport might be: How many taxpayers benefit directly or indirectly from this non-essential service? How would you go about decreasing expenses to the point of revenues?
When all is said and done, ignoring the education budget and the MBR the State called to Sherwood’s attention in March, without mentioning this subject anywhere in their budget presentation is the “height of audacity and hubris” at this point. Audacity is a word favored by Finance Office former acting Director Norton. I think the sense of it applies to ignoring a clear State directive. No CYA here. Just full speed ahead, the kids in the classroom be damned. How do Mayor FInch and the City Council propose to deal with this matter, especially if the State says, “Two can play this game” and end up reducing ECS or other Grant funds? How about MEET US HALFWAY? Where will you find $1.6 Million, Tom? Bet you can do it with your eyes closed!!! Time will tell.
And I would be remiss if I did not comment on the only council person to appear in the photo of the Steal Point groundbreaking; Mary Yvette Brantley.
Not only did she not move out of the city but she again stood in the corner with her friends from RCI Marine. They truly are masters of her Universe.
In all of the great press this event achieved nowhere does it say the TIGER Grant is a Federal matching grant but the matching money is not coming from the deadbeat developers but the city of Bridgeport taxpayers again bailing out RCI Marine somewhere to the tune of $8 million.
Mighty expensive piece of PR, Mayor Bill.
Thanks Bob, for your multiple postings today. Your voice and attitude are missed. Andre Baker continues to open up the process as a WATCHDOG and he needs THANKS and support.
While I am at it I would also like to recognize Marlene Seigel, Chief Financial Officer of the Public Schools. Go to their site and look at her reports, spread sheets, accountings of grants and other reports. Dependable, easy to comprehend and responsive to questions.
Michele Lyons has seen the school system make some radical changes in purchasing this past year that affected offices, classrooms and pencil-based ordering procedures not adequate for the 21st Century or taxpayer efficiency. She tried to carry that message to her fellow Council persons, largely without success. Are they really going to study it? Who will assist? CitiStat that today has no employees? Let’s keep an eye on their study! What has been purchased by the City in recent years and then not used (because no one knows how to operate it, because it was the wrong equipment for the task, because it’s embarrassing to discuss publicly) or your own story? I do not believe the items will turn out to be snow shovels! Time will tell.
Time for a Comprehensive Audit!
*** Once again (correct me if I’m wrong) it comes to mind a statement made by Mayor Finch during his first year in office when he was complaining about the Fabrizi Admin leaving his admin &and the city of Bpt about $17 million in the “red!” Which was one of his main reasons for some of his worker forced retirements, layoffs and firings. One of his statements as I recall was he and his admin would “never” propose nor accept a new city budget that was based in any way on unrealistic future “assumed” incoming revenue or assumed economic development! Seems this budget not only relies on outside “assumed revenues” but also a large pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, no? ***
The truth is the City Council didn’t do much on the budget and they punted on the real drivers of the City’s structural financial challenge. They are banking on getting more state aid and the City not having to pay an additional $3.3 million for education. They did not impose a hard hiring freeze, they did not freeze managers’ pay, they did not consider furloughs, including for the Mayor’s office, even though the federal government and many state and local governments are doing so. They increased the labor concession number by $400,000 but didn’t cut their own stipend. And they voted to fund a $15,000 pay increase for “Mr. Conflict of Interest” City Council President Tom McCarthy. They obviously don’t realize how serious the City’s financial challenges are and how much discontent there is among the citizens and taxpayers of Bridgeport. They will find out soon. We have just begun to fight!