New Britain Mayor's Veto Message

June 8, 2009

The Honorable Peter Denuzze
Town and City Clerk
27 West Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051

Dear Mr. Denuzze:

The City of New Britain, like cities and towns across Connecticut and across America, is facing some of the most challenging economic times since the great Depression. The decision before us is whether the city’s leaders make the difficult decisions necessary to maintain a sound financial structure, or whether we ignore the economic thunderclouds around us and continue with business as usual.

Our taxpayers have their own economic uncertainties as many are facing reduced income, loss of jobs or foreclosure on their homes. When I submitted my proposed budget to the Common Council on April 9th, I stated that I would not add to that uncertainty and loss of hope by raising property taxes. I am glad to see that the Council agreed with me and kept the mill rate flat.

However, I take great exception to how the Council has chosen to arrive at that mill rate. The Council budget as adopted last Friday uses a mixture of gimmicks such as inflated revenue estimates to increase appropriations for politically popular causes, some of which will not reap actual benefits from the Council’s pandering for votes in an election year.

The most onerous of these gimmicks is the Council’s arbitrary raising of the tax collection rate from the rate recommended in both the Board of Finance and Taxation (BFT) and the Mayor’s budget. The rate in the BFT and Mayor’s recommended budgets was based on the actual audited rates as of June 30, 2008 (latest available) which was a 95.7% collection rate. The BFT lowered that rate to 95.3% given the economic downtown and rise in foreclosure rates that had taken place since June 30, 2008 and I concurred with that conservative approach.

Instead of keeping the fiscally prudent approach of using actual collection experience, the Council has thrown caution to the wind by picking the 10 year average collection rate of 96.60%. Ignoring the worst economic slump since the great Depression, the Council is closing its eyes and putting in a rate that, as the word average implies, takes into account good years with high collection rates as well as bad years, such as we find ourselves in now. While this wishful thinking may seem harmless to some and beneficial to others as a way to restore funding to programs, it will be seen as fiscal lunacy by bond rating agencies that could lead to a downgrading of the City’s bond rating that we have fought so hard to

Denuzze
Page Two
June 8, 2009

maintain. A downgrade will in turn lead to higher debt service and interest costs. In addition, if the downturn continues through a significant portion of the fiscal year, the City will face a significant deficit in June 2010.

Another questionable decision by the Council was to continue to appropriate money for a Senior Citizen tax relief program that does not exist. It does not exist because despite continually talking about it, the Council has not put forward the ordinances necessary by state statute to enact a senior tax freeze program.

The Council’s budget cancels a $745,000 transfer from this phantom program into the general fund, where it could provide some tax relief for all New Britain taxpayers. The budget also puts another $255,000 aside, to make it an even million dollars, not because that is what the program , if ever enacted by the slow moving Council, would cost, but because a million dollars for senior citizen tax relief looks great on a campaign brochure.

Even more disingenuous is the fact that the Council, in particular Majority Leader Michael Trueworthy, know full well that the senior tax freeze cannot take effect for the 2010 fiscal year because the state statutory deadline for seniors to apply is May 15th. So for the sake of political grandstanding, one million dollars appropriation will be sitting doing no one – not seniors, not anybody – any good.

The Council is applying a similar sleight of hand to a revenue item entitled, “blight assessment”. Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 7-148ff allows municipalities to adopt an ordinance to impose a special assessment on blighted properties. While I am fully in support of anything that will assist the City in enforcing our blight ordinances, this revenue amount is being used as a budget balancer rather than for the intended purpose of the program, blight mitigation.

First, how is the $250,000 derived? If the assessment parameters have not been defined, how does the Council know how many properties will be assessed and at what amount? Second, the state statue indicates (in part) that any assessments collected must “be deposited in a special fund or account maintained by the municipality which shall be dedicated for expenses of the municipality related to enforcement of ordinances regarding blight”. Therefore, any revenue received would not go into the general fund, but a special revenue fund. Third, a large proportion of these assessments would likely go uncollected, necessitating a lien on the property, so revenue would not be received in the year of assessment, but in subsequent years when the property is sold or transferred.

Another implausible revenue item is the $100,000 in additional parking ticket revenue proposed by the Council. The Council is confusing budgeted revenue with collection rate. Filling the vacant parking meter attendant position would enhance collections, but it would not create new sources of revenue. The amounts that the City could collect with the efforts of two full time parking monitors was already reflected in the Mayor’s proposed budget.


Denuzze
Page Three
June 8, 2009

The cumulative result of these poor budgetary choices is that the City will be facing a deficit of over $1.6 million dollars, not even taking into consideration any unforeseen expenditures or shortfalls in revenue. Take that in conjunction with the possibility that the state legislature will not meet state grant estimates from the Governor’s budget, and you truly have a fiscal perfect storm.

Given the economic climate, New Britain cannot afford wishful thinking or pie in the sky estimates. While I would prefer to veto the entire Council budget, I will not as that would result in a loss of some of the 5% reductions developed by city department heads. I will therefore veto this budget in part to at least mitigate some of the potential revenue shortfalls that the Council has built into their budget.

While this partial veto may be little more than symbolic, I felt it was important to call to taxpayers’ attention the fact that this budget has increased city spending over the Mayor’s proposed budget by close to one million dollars. This is cause for concern when the revenue behind this spending increase is based on fictitious projections.

And to those on the Council who feel that the Mayor’s proposed budget and its 5% across the board cuts was an abdication of responsibility, I remind you that the Mayor has the 24/7 responsibility of implementing whatever budget the Council adopts. Weekly if not daily, I review the budget line by line, particularly those dealing with personnel. The FY 2010 budget that the Council has adopted with its shaky tax collection estimates will mean that the hiring freeze begun last year will remain in effect, along with other cost saving measures that were implemented at my initiative. I take very seriously my responsibility to keep a tight rein on city finances, not just for a few weeks at budget time, but throughout the year.

For the above reasons, and with all due respect to the Council, I hereby veto in part as outlined in the attached line item detail, Resolution #30550-5 of the June 5, 2005 special meeting of the New Britain Common Council. This veto is done to protect city taxpayers with the hope that the Council majority can put aside its partisanship to work together to face the tough economic realities facing the City of New Britain.

Sincerely,




Timothy T. Stewart
Mayor, City of New Britain


cc: Common Council
Robert Curry, Finance Director