Update: Pending storm cancels City Council meeting for tonight according to the City Clerk’s office. Next scheduled full council meeting is February 3.
On the eve of Tuesday night’s City Council meeting for a possible vote to approve a legal settlement for the controversial airport land deal, Councilwoman Michelle Lyons is urging her colleagues to table the agenda item and return it to the Public Safety Committee in light of new information presented to her independently from the city regarding related project expenses for the access road that’s cost taxpayers more than $400,000. “This Airport decision in the past has created mistrust among our constituents,” Lyons writes in an email to council members. “We need to be aware of all the facts and be responsible representatives for our districts and city.”
“It’s the responsible thing to do and hopefully everyone will be behind me to table this and send it back to committee,” Lyons, co-chair of the Public Safety Committee that voted to approve the estimated $60,000 settlement, told OIB on Monday. Lyons did not specify the source of the information presented to her. She wants her colleagues to examine the information in case it’s in conflict with the legal settlement proposed by the City Attorney’s Office. Lyons’ letter follows:
Dear City Council Colleagues:
I have received phone calls from council members in reference to information that was sent to me and other council members this past Friday regarding the driveway expenses for the airport. This new information on the Airport Access Road driveway cost was not given to the Public Safety Committee. This now leaves many questions unanswered. Never mind other information that was given to me about transactions regarding Sikorsky airport.
At the Public Safety Committee meeting we had a caucus and Attorney Anastasi gave us a legal document between the city and Breakwater Key Condo to review. This agreement was discussed in our caucus but we were told it could not be mentioned outside of committee because it is under litigation. Financial statements in the paper say one amount, the city attorneys states another amount and my new information states another amount. All these cost settlements do not line up with each other.
The Public Safety Committee members could not take the document given to us by Attorney Anastasi home to review because it is under litigation.
Also, some council members had to leave and would have to leave due to personal reasons. I was told that the council would be notified that they could set up times to review this document with the City Attorney’s office before the next council meeting. To date there has been no notice to the council by the city’s attorneys office letting the council know they can review this material. It was mentioned that this document would be brought to the caucus for review for next the council meeting. This is not enough time for the council to review this important information both from the city attorneys office and the what was given to me. I also believe that the Contracts Committee should be involved with this decision since there is a contract involved.
Just for the record I did not have a vote in committee as a Co-Chair. Also, at the Public Safety Meeting meeting, I requested from the new Airport Director paperwork on the financial impact to the City of Bridgeport. I have not received this information.
Due to new information that was given to me, I now have additional questions that need to be answered.
Here are just some of my questions:
I heard the City of Bridgeport owned Long Beach in Stratford. Do we still own this property? or was it sold or agreement to transfer and why? Who signed this document and why did it not come before the council.
We need to see the signed governmental agreement with the Town of Stratford and Bridgeport, FAA, along with the State of CT. This agreement went before the Stratford’s City Council but not the Bridgeport’s City Council in Bridgeport. Why?
Where in the Breakwater settlement is the city’s Attorney office time, and court costs. Also, where is the correct financial signed agreement or releases with the Breakwater Key Condo. There was discussion on a settlement but no paperwork was given to us on the detailed specific costs.
Due to new information that was given to me this past Friday and not at the Public Safety Meeting, no notification for the council to come and review the litigation documents, financial information that I requested has not yet been sent to me nor the committee. My only course of action as being a responsible Co-Chair of Public Safety is to table this matter and send it back to committee. We as a council could then review all new information, look over that litigation document, and have our questions answered. Again, I encourage and trust that my colleagues will stand behind me on my decision to table this matter and send it back to the Public Safety Committee. I also encourage my council colleagues to attend the next Public Safety Meeting. This Airport decision in the past has created mistrust among our constituents. We need to be aware of all the facts and be a responsible representatives for our districts and city. This is one of the most important matters that have come across us as a City Council Representative. I will be making a public statement regarding my decision to table and send this matter back to the Public Safety Committee and to the Contract Committee at our next City Council meeting this Tuesday night.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.
Thank you, Council Representative Lyons.
This is so typical of the City Attorney’s office.
I remember once when I was new to the council, there was a similar type of issue before the committee and part of it dealt with the appraisal of property. The City Attorney handed out papers and pretty much told us we couldn’t take notes. He then collect all of the papers afterwards.
I took notes and then called the state FOI Commission afterwards and asked if FOI implied a gag order. He said no but did know why I would want to discuss it with others. The City Attorney represents the council. I told him I didn’t believe the appraisal we were given and I wanted to discuss it with real estate professionals. He said the city could not use Executive Session to prevent council members from talking about what occurred.
Looking at what Follow the Money posted the other day, maybe the CA office was acting on behalf of Attorney Saxl and did not want his clients to know he would charge them $32K to get $22K worth of improvements. Or worse, if they lose $32K for nothing.
Or maybe the City Attorney’s office is so embarrassed by this whole mess they don’t want any information out at all and if it must come out only after the deal is done.
THANK YOU Councilwoman Michelle Lyons!
And did anyone else notice the city attempted to terminate John Ricci (he did retire, remember), they are in the process of terminating or demoting the purchasing agent Bern Trady and yet NO ONE in the City Attorney’s office apparently did anything wrong even though the taxpayers are paying for outside legal counsel to represent the city in this matter, paid for outside legal counsel to represent the city in the Ricci matter, is reimbursing the condo association for their legal fees and God knows if there is more we do not know about and we do not know how many hours their staff spent on this matter. Totally disgusting.
Did you know City Council representatives have no expressed duties as elected officials? They have a responsibility to make laws (called Ordinances) and to approve budgets as well as to answer to their constituents as to whatever is raised, but no specific duties. In the course of their meetings they are asked to vote approval for many items originating with the City, for instance Grants, but then get no regular information from the City on such grants, funding, personnel employed, etc., until the next cycle, unfortunately.
The Airport is a different animal for several reasons. The City lists it as a Non-Essential Service in the Annual Budget Document for years but during the Finch administration has managed to lose over $1.5 Million in its operating budget forcing residential taxpayers to make up these annual losses. The Mayor and City Council President are on that Commission so they are automatically “in the know.” The FAA funding of over $40 Million is important to the safety of people flying into and out of Sikorsky but it also calls for $2 Million of local and $2 Million of State commitment. So it is a reasonable time to look at what the Council saw in December 2012 and wonder why they ever voted in favor. And the answer is momentum, perhaps. Because most were automatic in voting YES. And even more accustomed to giving up the vote and letting the Consent Calendar make their vote unnecessary.
Can a Council member tell you what he is voting on and why? Perhaps sometimes that is possible. But I would wager there is not one who can point to their homework in a given Council session and declare they had all of the info necessary to make an informed decision to serve the taxpaying public of Bridgeport in both the short and long term. Such an informed Council member would be urging more general info, more hearings as called for in the Charter, and more informational sessions about matters that the City has settled with the State around pensions, around minimum required payments by City towards education, and full and accurate reporting on Grand List trends, especially the Net Taxpaying Grand List. But if you fail to ask for information, who is at fault? Perhaps there are more people, rookies though they may be, who understand it is only through a persistent questioning process we will ever get to a better state of knowledge by all parties on behalf of the taxpayer, so Airport/driveways/legal expenses/settlements is a full disclosure opportunity. After all if it is no problem passing along an unbalanced Airport budget to the tune of $400,000 annually where plane owners and operators benefit from a residential tax base ‘subsidy,’ then this isn’t really a ‘biggie’ for Mayor Finch, City Attorney Anastasi, and Council President McCarthy, is it? Time will tell.
Thank you Council woman Michelle Lyons. Most eloquent letter and this should stop anyone from insinuating you are not 100% supportive of your constituents and the entire city. Not only should you be commended, but other city council members should immediately support your request.
This is what happens when you have a responsible council member who isn’t afraid to listen, ask questions and follow the money.
Way to go, Shelley! 😉
Good job by Michele Lyons. Now if the rest of the council follows suit the people of Bridgeport may finally have a proper government in place.
There are two departments that can be eliminated from the budget and save the taxpayers money.
1. Airport: To what end do we need an airport? The old song and dance that it will spur economic development is pure BS. This department costs us millions to operate. The only people who use the airport are a few wealthy out-of-towners who need a place to store their planes. The airport is also a place where this and other administrations hire their political hacks. Can someone give me on good reason to keep the airport open?
2. City attorney’s office. I spent a good deal of my working life working with lawyers from around the country and I can tell you this, we do not need this group of rejects that is there now. What do they litigate anyway? Most of the city’s cases are given to outside law firms and cost us big bucks. Pure and simple, Mark Anastasi is full of shit as are a lot of his rulings. It is amazing no one from his office was reprimanded from the airport folly that is the driveway. Think about this, if these were top-of-the-line litigators, would they be working for the city for $90K?
*** It’s old school to understand when things are done transparently and on time without rushing, most of the time the council can come to a sound, well-thought-out decision. But when things are rushed by the city in a matter where most of the Q&A’s are left unanswered with a false promise of, “we’ll get back to you on that” type of response, you can be sure it may come back to haunt you sometime in the future, no? *** TABLE THIS ISSUE ‘TIL YOU’RE READY, COUNCIL MEMBERS ***
Lyons seems to take no lies, no b.s., no prisoners. I hope she will take my vote.
Just one more reason why this entire process should be conducted in public.
Does the snow emergency cancel the council meeting?
Will Tom McCarthy, City Council President, Airport Commission member, Deputy Director of Labor Relations recuse himself?
Will Mayor Finch, Airport Commission member, the lead accuser of John Ricci and Chair of the City Council meeting recuse himself and hand the gavel off to someone else?
I’m conflicted over this whole mess.
And even if the City Council found a backbone and passed a resolution calling for an independent investigation into the facts, Mark Anastasi would declare with a straight face he is the only one who could hire an attorney to conduct such an investigation. No lie.
Bob Walsh, two of biggest things that hold Bridgeport back are what you have pointed out, Mark Anastasi and “unanimous” approval AND on the consent calendar.
FROM THE CT POST
City Council meeting cancelled
Posted on January 21, 2014 | By Jim Shay
The Bridgeport City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 21 at 7 p.m. has been cancelled due to the upcoming snow storm.
We know this is not so the public will be there for the airport vote. Maybe they are circling the wagons, counting the votes and need a little more arm-twisting time.
Anyone not familiar with the workings of city government would sense Bob Walsh is being overly cynical. Unfortunately, his comments are based on experience.
This project is far from complete, permit and certificate of occupancy are still pending. Approval from Town of Stratford not yet complete. City Council should not vote to settle until all permits are in.
1. Can someone tell me who’s going to maintain this driveway and the underground utilities?
2. How did this project circumvent the CAM report? (Coastal Area Management)
3. When will the City Council lien the property’s owners for the cost of this morass?
FROM THE CT POST
Council President Thomas McCarthy, D-133, said he will recommend sticking to Tuesday’s plan. He wants council members to receive a private briefing on the settlement, have a public discussion, then vote on whether to proceed or delay the deal.
But of course! And apparently he plans on being right smack in the middle of the debate.
WHAT WENT WRONG? WHAT WILL BE DONE IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE SURE IT WON’T HAPPEN AGAIN? WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE NEW POLICY FINCH ANNOUNCED CONCERNING DISCLOSURE?
NO ANSWER! NO ACTION! NO VOTE!!!
Quite a few things waiting to break out of City Hall these days …
–the Sikorsky Airport story, no real info to the City Council (nothing new with that) about, first a simple driveway to process quickly and simply requested with no details and subsequently morphs into a much larger story relative to $40 Million safety project and timelines … and access ways … and legal procedures … and lots of lawyers … and a new airport manager … and it ain’t over ’til it’s over.
–an external audit, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of 2013 … where is it? Usually completed before year end and handed to City leaders to put their narratives in place and then shared with the public on City site … but no meeting to answer questions regarding details, regarding trends, regarding questions on increasing debt, payments to Internal Service Funds, progress on lawsuits with major taxpayers, etc. … and perhaps for the first time in decades, as the City Council has requested an update of the draft June 2013 monthly report that would be FINAL … something special to review in terms of where the funds unspent on some line items actually did get spent?
–revaluation time? Or not … the money has been budgeted the past two years … some undoubtedly has been spent … and it is likely that revaluation work has been done … but are the results so devastating (at City Hall preliminary review) that a taxpayer revolt is likely … so even though the City has asked for and been denied a delay in reval, they are back to the State for more special handling? Voters are often taxpayers who pay attention … and Governor Malloy might remember that, especially if a two-year extension were provided, as requested, to Mayor Finch.
We are six years into the Finch years, enough time to demonstrate accountable and transparent fiscal behavior is not the strong suit here. When will these shoes begin to drop? Time will tell.
*** Getting egg on the city council member’s face once should be more than enough. Twice is shameful and three times it’s time to turn in the council member’s stipend card, no? *** TAKE THE TIME TO FIND AND GET ALL THE INFO NEEDED THIS TIME! ***
This saga has more twists & turns than a James Bond movie. Didn’t I just read on here last week that Ms. Lyons was in agreement with this? I’m confused.