Finance board no longer tight-fisted

Here's something to mull over about the budget vote.
The whole point of creating the Board of Finance -- and having a joint vote on the budget between fiscal commissioners and City Council members -- was to ensure that spending-crazy politicians didn't put the city into a fiscal meltdown.
The fear has always been that elected officials would spend too much -- and perhaps levy taxes that are too burdensome.
So for most of its history, the finance board has been the tight-fisted panel that says "no" when the politicians want to say "yes." It's worked out most of the time.
At the Joint Board, the finance panel has more votes than the council because it was deliberately created to be larger so that it could, if its members held together, have the final say on budgets and bonding. It could overrule what the politicians want every time.
What's changed, though, is that the finance board isn't pinching pennies anymore.
Look at last night's vote, for example.
On the final budget, five people voted no - Mayor Art Ward, Finance Vice Chairman Roald Erling and city Councilors Ken Cockayne, Frank Nicastro and Mike Rimcoski.
Every one of the opponents wanted a lower tax rate and a lower budget.
That means that of the eight finance commissioners who voted, only two -- Ward and Erling - voted against the budget.
So the final vote among councilors was 4-3 against the extra spending, but 6-2 in favor of the extra spending among finance board members.
That's no fluke either.
Consider the 7-7 vote on the finance board-approved budget that would have hiked property taxes more than 6 percent. On that vote, the finance board members split 4-4 while the council voted 4-3 against that high a budget.
But take Ward out of the picture and financ commissioners actually approved the higher budget amount by a 4-3 margin.
What's happened is genuinely curious: the finance board is now less thrifty than the council.
I'm sure that's never happened before in Bristol politics.

More detail...

Back in the Great Depression, when the city’s coffers were empty and its taxpayers tapped out, the business community in town cut a deal to provide City Hall with much-needed cash in return for creating a Board of Finance that would control Bristol’s budgets and bonding.
It worked out pretty well in those dire days.
And almost ever since, the finance board has served as a check on city spending, gunning down projects that politicians pushed and generally trying to hold down taxes and squirrel away money for the future.
It’s given Bristol well-rated finances – which lead to lower borrowing costs when projects are approved – and generally provided the city with the ability to cope with economic downturns.
What’s different now, probably for the first time, is that finance commissioners are keener to hike taxes and spending than politicians. The finance board isn't pinching pennies anymore.
Look Monday's budget votes, for example.
On the final $170.9 million budget, five people voted no - Mayor Art Ward, Finance Vice Chairman Roald Erling and city Councilors Ken Cockayne, Frank Nicastro and Mike Rimcoski.
Every one of the opponents wanted a lower tax rate and a lower budget.
That means that of the eight finance commissioners who voted, only two, Ward and Erling, voted against the budget that eventually prevailed Monday.
So the final vote among councilors was 4-3 against the extra spending, but 6-2 by finance board members in favor of the higher spending.
That's no fluke either.
Consider the 7-7 vote on the $172.7 million finance board-approved budget that would have hiked property taxes more than 6 percent. On that vote, the finance board members split 4-4 while the council refused 4-3 to back that high a budget.
But take Ward out of the picture and finance commissioners present actually approved the higher budget amount by a 4-3 margin. It’s only because the mayor and council wanted lower taxes that the higher budget didn’t pass.
Part of the equation is that three city councilors – Democrat Frank Nicastro and Republicans Ken Cockayne and Mike Rimcoski – favored a property tax freeze. They voted against every option.
Mayor Art Ward and Finance Vice Chairman Roald Erling were each willing to vote for a budget that contained as much as a one mill tax hike – a 4 percent increase – but nothing higher.
Three city councilors - Cliff Block, Kevin McCauley and Craig Minor – voted for a budget that would have hiked taxes by 1.5 mills, or 6 percent. They had support from four finance commissioners: Janet Moylan, Ron Messier, Don Soucy and John Smith.
Several of them said the mayor’s proposal made “too big a cut” and left the contingency fund with too little to cover likely needs. Moylan said that “to maintain what we have,” a 6 percent mill rate hike was needed.
Two members of the finance board, Chairman Rich Miecznikowski and Mark Peterson, were willing to see a mill rate hike as high as 1.1, but not as much as the 1.5 mills the panel initially approved.
Miecznikowski said that people “would be very upset” if the panel backed the 6 percent increase. He said that given the hard times people face, that high an increase “doesn’t cut it.”
“We really need to tighten our belts,” Miecznikowski said, echoing what finance officials have said for decades.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com