City fiscal observer John Marshall Lee, in his latest address to the City Council Monday night, offers a series of questions concerning the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. From Lee:
A CT Post reporter recently indicated that an important issue facing you this evening will be about the renaming of streets, the need for such coming when one member of the community feels that an individual is deemed worthy of such an honor. It is probably also a worthy subject so that streets and avenues in the City have a name, commonly understood by all public safety officials and the public they vow to serve. Let us be safe and secure.
My purpose is to raise issues that continue to exist indicating weakness and the inclination towards sickness in City governance and thus to the community at large:
• Money issues are always important. But if issues are too complex, presented poorly or inaccurately, or untimely, then things slide by, unreviewed, unmonitored, poorly understood and likely supportive of inefficiency or even illegality. As an example, the audit of 2013 released about one year ago indicated that in that fiscal year $500,000 of excess revenue showed up as Cash- Miscellaneous in the Comptroller’s revenue budget. Did any of you raise the question as to its source or whether it would repeat itself? Revenue is good. Is there harm in the question?
• That same external audit revealed that 15 Council members in June 2013 with the guidance of their leadership had requested purchase orders totaling nearly $30,000 for City taxpayer funds to be sent to non-profit organizations. It was a primary year and an election year. There exist no agenda, minutes or official City meeting records. That would appear to make this an illegal action in sending funds from the “Legislative – Other Services” account for which no services were received by the City. Why has there been no response to this behavior?
• Where is your answer for taxpayer funds exceeding a half million dollars spent in hasty fashion for a roadway in Stratford CT as well as separate legal expenses while your Council President sits on that Commission with the Mayor? Is there a final report?
• City Council stipends are authorized by Ordinance it is true. But the system in action for two years is other than Ordinance. The City no longer reimburses. It advances funds. Taxpayers do not trust the system, nor should they when you tabled two years ago, a review and restatement of such an Ordinance. You operate extra legally and wonder why taxpayers object? When will you become legal?
• This past year in the name of economic development you have granted special taxing plans or abatement agreements to certain owners, many of whom reside outside Bridgeport. Each deal you make, whether for ten years or forty years, forces City “full” taxpayers to make up the dollars that will be lost per your agreement. Current taxpayers are forced to subsidize each project though they are never shown the amount of the subsidy, individually or cumulatively. Can you show your District what an average homeowner pays extra in taxes because of the total of subsidies? Do you even have that information when you vote?
• Each month you receive a financial report of some 80-90 pages that most of you do not read, and the minority of Council members who scan it, register no concern on any issues. Nine months ago I indicated a method for making such a report more GREEN, by cutting its size by 75% to the same categories you review at budget time and ignoring the Board of Education budget except for less than six line items as their own report is on line and includes the number of employees per department as well as grant revenues, details which you as Council members do not receive regarding City departments. Are you afraid to know what is truly happening about taxpayer money? Don’t you know that you are responsible for inaction?
Within the next week or so, I expect that you will receive the Comprehensive Annual Financial Review from the external auditors as well as the final audited June, 2014 monthly financial report. What news resides there for taxpayers unhappy with October 2008 property valuations? Will you hold special meetings where responses will be available to questions raised? If you don’t do this on a city-wide basis, will you do so within your District? Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, I have a few questions for you. The list of concerns, were they given in written form and who were they given to and have you ever gotten a written reply in the past?
All good questions, Mr. Lee, and if I could, I would love to add one more. “When will fellow councilman Rich Paoletto’s second sexual harrassment complaint be resolved? Right now he’s being paid to stay at home, with our city teetering on the brink, the taxpayers can ill afford this “taking care of our own” treatment. It’s been months now.
Harvey,
I have at least six more topics, but each speaking session is limited to 5 minutes before Tom McCarthy hammers the gavel to end a session.
When I look at fiscal matters, the Paoletto case is important because it is clear from revelations from his last penalty that he needs the money for his family and cannot afford to be suspended without pay. Well the City requires his full attention to his duties and that they be efficiently and effectively carried out. Otherwise our funds are wasted in some proportion.
Finally, actions by an employee in their work environment that harm other persons may cause the City to pay financial consequences. That can be expensive too. Where is a list of the payments/settlements either to City employees wrongfully or harmfully discharged or because a City employee acting inappropriately while on duty?? I have asked for that list before. OIB readers can come up with a good list but no dollar amounts are attached. Do you know? Time will tell.
Ron,
The OIB essay/public statement above contains 751 words. I was able to deliver those words to the Council members attending the public speaking session, perhaps 11 or 12 of the ultimate 19 who were present for Council roll call at 7:00 PM. So the Council persons first listened to them. I was also recorded by video in my delivery. Next I returned to my office within 24 hours of the meeting and sent a copy of the comments electronically to each Council person, including Sue Brannelly who was absent and also to the City Clerk for full inclusion in the minutes of the Council meeting.
That is my pattern at each Council meeting I attend on the first and third Monday of most months. I cannot remember ever receiving a written reply to any question of any essay. That is part of the reason I keep repeating some of the material, just like our elementary school teachers did to us, years ago. Perhaps someday one or more topics will make sense and a reply will seem appropriate.
From a communication point of view, there is (and has been) some open communication with a handful of Council persons who are interested in knowing more than they currently get on such topics. As you have indicated to me at least once in the past, most people do not like to be put on the spot, accused of things where they feel no guilt or particular responsibility, but why not speak up? Failing to speak up, tell me where I have misrepresented the facts or misunderstood the process, or whatever, is not a sign of authority acting responsibly.
If I have not answered your questions in complete fashion, please advise. Time will tell.
John, here is an example we found of a tax break for an out-of-towner from Maine. The Rotary club owned a high rise senior housing apartment house on Laurel near Wood. The building has been 100% occupied since it was built many years ago.
Rotary has been paying the full taxes on this building since it was built they never got a break on the taxes. A company from Maine just bought the apartments from Rotary and went to the council and asked for a tax break. These idiots on the council voted for an abatement. WHY???
Andy,
The City listed the property value over $4Million for the 100 units. But the new PRIVATE buyer was going to pay $6.6 Million, buy with borrowed funds and install improvements at the rate of $25,000 per unit. Might you say the reason for the abatement was so they could meet the needs of the lender in terms of a rational deal, and pay the 40-year owner more than $2 million more than the City Assessor valued the property? What will Rotary do to assist the Mayor with a Park or Beach project in the near future? Would that have any connection to pushing this deal through and forcing taxpayers to subsidize another project?
As a member of Rotary International, though not the Bridgeport Club, we have an ethical guideline that is called the FOUR WAY TEST. See if any of this applies.
1. Is it the Truth?
2. Is it Fair to all concerned?
3. Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
4. Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
How many of the subjects we write about, especially those dealt with by the City Council, could pass this Four Way Test if regularly subjected to such consideration? Time will tell.
John, most houses are assessed for less than what they sell for. Who is going to oversee the makeovers? They maybe paid too much but it’s not the taxpayers’ fault. They have opted to redo the apartments and that’s on them not the taxpayers. When I remodeled my house the only thing I received was an increase in my taxes.
Andy,
When revaluations are reasonably current and assessments in the State of CT are set at 70% of valuation, one expects to find assessments at less than market value.
A buyer never pays too much in Bridgeport. Isn’t it more likely the guys with the green eyeshades knew the values of the project now, knew what CHFA requirements were to receive funding for an existing project (and knew this would increase the property value (and normally the property taxes) but understood it would not work for the tenant monthly payments. So the easiest thing to adjust was future tax payments, for 40 years into the future. That covers lots of years and lots of money!!!
Currently with most Bridgeport property valued as of 10-1-08 and considering the decrease in values and continuing rollercoaster ride, many Bridgeport properties continue to have sale prices below assessment values. That is why the refusal by Mayor Finch to allow the 2013 values to go into effect was a bad decision for the public because the public would have been aroused by the changes. Worse yet, it is very likely owners of less valuable property today are paying relatively higher taxes today than they would if the 2013 valuations were controlling. Mayor Finch’s decision was political, as well as wasteful, because the revaluation will be done again currently to go into effect October 1, 2015 but taxpayers are not likely to get the word until the week after election. Can you wait for the good news? Time will tell.