The City Council is scheduled to vote on Mayor Bill Finch’s budget proposal Monday night. The budget then goes back to the mayor for possible veto action. The council will set the final mil rate in June for the budget year starting July 1.
AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, May 9, 2011
7:00 p.m.
city council chambers, city hall – 45 lyon terrace
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Prayer
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
COMMUNICATION TO BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE:
80-10 Communication from OPM re Budget Modification to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Nutrition Budget: Increase revenue line item 01900902 42617 Federal Breakfast Program to $963,547 to include Increase appropriation line items 01900902 54595 Food to $803,000 and 01900902 54600 Food Service Supplies to $160,547 for funding to complete school year Breakfast program, referred to Budget and Appropriations Committee.
MATTERS TO BE ACTED UPON:
62-10 Budget and Appropriations Committee Report re General Fund Budget a,b,c,d for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 – Votes as follows:
General Fund:
a. Revenue Increases
b. Appropriation Increases
c. Appropriation Decreases
d. General Fund Budget Fiscal Year 2011-2012
City Councilman Bob “Troll” Walsh offers these changes to the budget, not that they’ll be approved but what the heck:
For consideration by the Budget and Appropriations Committee, I would recommend the following changes to the mayor’s proposed budget
Decrease 1450PS OPED Personal Svcs $250,000
This equates to the increase in the period of FY2010 to FY2011
There is no real Economic Development taking place in the city at the present time, nor was there any last year. I proposed this change last year and it was not considered by the committee but I am proposing it again this year.
Decrease 1106PS CAO Personal Svcs $198,250
This equates to the Deputy CAO who runs CitiStat and 2 of the 3 Assistant Special Project Managers who work in CitiStat
The CitiStat Department has failed to generate the saving that were predicted and should be unfunded.
This is especially true at a time when union labor concessions have been gained that further inhibit the city’s ability to intelligently realign the workforce in order to gain efficiencies.
This change would leave one position to handle whatever work is deemed most important.
Public Safety
Decrease 51108 Regular 1.5 OT Pay $150,000
Eliminate all special patrols, i.e. mounted police, segways, ATV’s, etc. Place officers back into regular patrol duties. This should in effect reduce OT.
Increase collection rate in budget to the amount that the city is using to balance the current year budget. I am not sure what the rate was talked about but in the February Financial Report the city said that collection rates had increase resulting in an increase in current year’s budget of $2,386,072. Whatever the effective rate is to create that overage and eliminate any deficit in the current year.
Offset all of the above with increase to the contingency account. This will be used to enhance fund balance at end of budget year
The Troll can be annoying, but he can also be right. I look forward to this hearing to see Bob in action.
How about Walsh for mayor? Hmmm … wouldn’t that be interesting?
City Needs a Major Charter Change
Tom Lombard recommended a few months back while he was on the campaign trail, the City of Bridgeport needs a major charter change.
Starting with the City Council that no elected members shall consist of more than 51% of the same political party, or fraction thereof.
1. A new (Elected Board of Finance), with nine voting members and two alternates, no more than six of whom shall be registered with the same political party.
2. A new (Elected Town Planning and Zoning Commission), with nine members and two alternates, with no more than six of whom shall be registered with the same political party.
3. A new (Elected Zoning Board of Appeals), with five members and two alternates, and no more than three of them registered with the same political party.
Let’s hope one of the mayoral candidates comes in with a Charter Revision for Bridgeport, and takes Tom Lombard’s recommendations.
Jimfox,
Lombard is dreaming with his eyes wide open. This city would fight it tooth & nail, they couldn’t fathom sharing power with any opponents. He might as well demand the BOE throw open their books for all the world to see.
This reminds me of an expression I heard during the O.J. Simpson trial, “There is no Justice, just us.”
After attending most of the budget and appropriations meetings I have come away with one thought.
The council is ill-prepared to deal with reviewing budget requests and department budgets. The members of the B & A while well intentioned really could not look at the budget from an entire city point of view. The members of the B & A fell into how does this affect my district mode.
I am of the opinion we need a Board of Finance to do the actual budget review. This board should be made up of 5 members of the party in the mayor’s seat 3 members of the minority party and 2 or 3 members made up of people who are registered independents. The members of these parties should have been members of their respective parties for 2 years before they are considered for appointment. This would stop party stooges from changing parties to get on this board.
Members should be a cross section of the residents of Bridgeport. Financial people, business owners and home owners.
The council should only be allowed to vote for the finished budget.
The problem with your suggestion is it makes too much sense. This city can only change when the taxpayers get fed up with the bullshit they are being fed. Fuck business as usual, bring business back to Bridgeport. Talk about the grapes dying on the vine.
*** No political parties or handpicked members by the mayor should be involved in the budget process. Time for an “independent legal accounting firm” experienced in government budgets that’s approved by the state & the city’s B&A to come in and do the job, with final vote & approval by the city council. *** CHANGE ***
BOWLING WITH MARBLES?
Like tc and another dozen taxpayer voter residents of Bridgeport I attended B & A hearings in the past month, listened to the questions of council members in attendance, and also noticed what they failed to question. Our B & A council persons for the most part were present at these sessions. And most of them had questions. One impressed me by stating an understanding that the B & A had a role to serve as a “check and balance” against the city. I am pleased with that recognition on the part of at least one member, and perhaps more, but the nature of the questions by the council and answers by the city representatives showed an uneven playing field of understanding.
Tom Sherwood is bowling with big balls and big pins and he is scoring strikes, though not a perfect game. B&A is at the bowling alley, rolling marbles at the big pins, and not aware of how the game is scored for the city as a whole. Tonight the proof will be in the pudding when they vote. Passing the mayor’s budget with no substantive changes will be another win for the administration and loss for the Council as representing a citywide constituency relative to property taxes paying for city obligations.
What do I mean?
* Pension Plan A had the consulting actuary for the plan present. He provided a 25-page report that was not used by any of the B&A group that night. Nor did any of them raise any facts or issues from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report – 2010, (CAFR-2010) the most recent city audit, about the underfunded nature of this plan, and HOW MAYOR FINCH’S BUDGETS IGNORE FUNDING MINIMUMS AS INDICATED BY THE ACTUARY. Why ignore professional advice? Why not at least have a public discussion? Why not look at what the administration told the State of CT last year about our perilous financial position, while finding dollars locally? Tens of millions in play on this problem during Finch’s three years that will be deferred to the future at a higher expense.
* CAFR-2010 also discussed under Note 12 the Other Post Employment Benefits owed by the city to former employees, namely continued healthcare. That note showed this plan is not “funded” but is on a “pay as you go” basis. Actual city costs have run about $50 Million per year during Finch’s tenure but the notes indicate only $30 Million is settled. About $20 Million per year has created a $61 Million negative asset that in my book is termed a liability. But where is this reported, discussed and dealt with as a financial matter by the B & A? Where is the actuarial report from the consulting actuary in this venture? Has $61 Million been added to the city’s debt burden without B &A awareness? More marbles and bowling balls? Deferring $61 Million from review and discussion is a pretty neat trick if you are in a bowling alley. So what is the story about this money? Will it be discussed publicly?
* More than one budget from City departments showed vacant positions. Yet the vacancies were funded for the coming year with benefits … when this was questioned by B&A Tom Sherwood answered the positions were funded to look forward to a future year when our economy and tax revenues were better. Sherwood did not guess when that time might come, but the answer was sufficient to stop Council curiosity. There are several million dollars of such potential cuts available in the budget that provides indirect flexibility and liquidity to the administration each year with essentially no accountability. Why? And why were there so few questions about the potential for cuts by B &A in the various budgets they reviewed? Cuts in some of the budgets from vacancy options or best practice efficiencies could help fully fund Pension Plan A and get the administration to practice more truth in this area.
B&A needs help from multiple areas. They should not think of themselves primarily as a micro-manager of efficiencies in city departments; certainly not while they have allowed this administration to reduce the reach and activities of CitiStat to being a telephone call center, rather than an engine to create greater efficiencies in local government. Practicing efficiency, and doing the most effective things, uses a budget well. We are not there. When asked by a Council member for efficiency results BY THE NUMBERS for CitiStat, the City had no accurate response to the question. Count that question as one of a handful that was on target this year. Not enough to put any marks on the score sheet for B&A unfortunately.
Going back to the first evening of this year’s B & A hearings, one volunteer heard the comment of one Council member (not a B & A member): “What are you doing here at this meeting? You don’t get to talk.” Well, we did not get to talk for the past month, but now is our time. And if we prove to ask better or more revealing questions than does the Council during this process, perhaps there is a way to improve the budget review process in the city. It is currently broken. The marbles are too small to knock down the pins and come to a real understanding, and most of your 20-person bowling team can wear the bowling shirt but they can’t step to the line without rolling the object into the gutter. We the community are striking out because of this. Taxpaying is not a game!
BEACON2 // May 9, 2011 at 9:34 am
To your posting
What you are witness to is legally sanctioned embezzlement. Just like there are legal drugs.
Also can we expect the retirees with pension A to file against the Mayor et al. for failure as fiduciary for the trust? What say you to this madness?