May 15, 2008

Many groups face "very significant" cuts in new budget plan

City Councilor Craig Minor sent this along a few minutes ago:

It's not realistic to whack the TEAM budget by over 40% and not expect repercussions. The Mum Festival committee, the Veterans Council, and the Forestville Village Association should be prepared for a very significant reduction in their funding next year due to the Mayor's latest budget cuts. We met with the Mayor yesterday and offered a budget that would have reduced funding for the Mum Parade, the Memorial Day Parade, and the North Main Street festival by "only" 20%, but it was rejected. The Mayor said that these are difficult financial times, and established organizations like the Mum Festival and the Veterans Council are going to have to step up their fundraising efforts.

Update:
Mayor Art Ward sent this along to someone who was worried about the Mum Festival getting its funding cut:

Anyone who has even hinted that the Mum Festival or any other TEAM sponsored activity has been predetermined to being completely cut in funding is doing you a disservice.
My statement was that everything, regardless of the activity, is subject to budgetary scrutiny as a result of the economic hardships that are being dealt with on both the governmental and personal taxpayer level and that funding will be prioritized after that review effort.
It is going to be impossible to present a responsible budget if everyone is going to advocate that only their funding is exempt from the process.
I ask that the Mum Festival, and all other venues which are requesting city dollars, allow us to use the opportunity to function in accordance with the responsibility which has been entrusted to us through the election process.



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

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

How about some REAL CUTS!

Anonymous said...

And Minor wants to create a foolish COO position earning over $100,000 each year?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see the proposal that Councilman Minor said the Mayor rejected.

Craig, can you show it to us? I think it's important for the citizens to see.

Anonymous said...

Looks like it is Ward versus Minor.

Anonymous said...

Poor Minor, always one clown short of a parade...

Anonymous said...

The Mum Festival Parade has been a tradition in Bristol for almost 50 years. The parade draws a huge crowd of both Bristolites and out-of-towners and is one of the few times Bristol really shines during the year. How many people know that the Mum Festival Committee has to pay for ALL marching bands -- even the local high schools? All groups have to pay for buses to transport them to the parade, and that cost, as well as any other expenses incurred by the bands, must be compensated. All bands send in response cards with their parade fee, which can sometimes be negotiated down. If the parade had no music from marching bands, it certainly wouldn't be much of a parade. While I believe the Mum Festival should do all it can to raise funds on their own, I think the City should step up to the plate and help to support an event that puts Bristol on the map each year.

Anonymous said...

Ward said: "I ask that the Mum Festival, and all other venues which are requesting city dollars, allow us to use the opportunity to function in accordance with the responsibility which has been entrusted to us through the election process."

can someone tell me what the hell that means??

Anonymous said...

It means "you ain't getting the money"!

Anonymous said...

I must admit, I'm getting a kick out of all this.

(giggles, chuckles)

Anonymous said...

everyone on the Team committe got a copy. If you know anyone on the committee ask them for a copy

Anonymous said...

Snip, snip, snip ~ we knew it was gonna hurt, but we asked for it so we can't cry everytime it happens. I think the Mum Festival is a good start ~ Bristol could do with a few less clowns anyway!

Anonymous said...

I would cut funding for the Veteran's Council all together since they moved their event to Lake Compounce. Let Lake Compounce fund them! If the Vets Council does not care about the City of Bristol, its aging veteran's population who will not want to deal with Lake Compounce or bringing people downtown, why should the city fund them? Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

What, Ward cut funds for his buddies Gamache and Nelligan?

Get real!

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the city is crying poor at the same time that they are preparing to go into arbitration hearings with the unions. Anyone interested in how this citys' finances have been mismanaged can look up the chart Steve Collins posted a couple of weeks ago that showed how much the city put into the pension funds over the years. Even in recent years , when these pensions were overfunded, the comptroller and the finance board allowed up to ten times as much as what was contractually obligated to flow into these funds. The city is only required, by contract , to match employee contributions, yet for years, dumped tax surpluses into the pension funds. This was simply hiding the fact that we have been overtaxed for a long time.

Anonymous said...

Again, by law the surpluses go into the Fund Balance, NOT into the Pension Fund.

Why are you putting out erroneous information?

Steve Collins said...

Aside from penny ante contributions by the Board of Education, the city hasn't put any money into the pension funds in years. Surpluses automatically roll into the undesignated reserve fund unless the Board of Finance earmarks the money for a designated use (sometimes, for example, it will squirrel some surplus cash into the equipment fund or to pay for future health care costs or that sort of thing).
It's simply not true that the money falls into an overfunded pension trust fund. Why would the city even think about doing that with any extra dollars? It wouldn't help anyone at all.

Anonymous said...

~ Too bad we can't tax stupid...that's one thing Bristol certainly seem to have a surplus of!

Anonymous said...

The city can budget pension contributions at their discretion. Until they negotiated with the unions to change pension language, they were obligated to match employees contributions. Putting surpluses into the pension allows the city to keep the tax rate artificially high. Look at the chart, it makes perfect sense.
Very high contributions, tapering off as the pension funds get more bloated, then reverting to zero after they are no longer obligated by law to contribute. Also don't forget that there is a cap on how big a surplus can go into the reserve fund in any given year. Steve, look at the chart , you posted it. The numbers don't lie.

Anonymous said...

"Bristol has one of the best-funded municipal pension funds in the country because it started 30 years ago to "shovel extra money" in a trust fund whose value soared with the rising stock market to such a degree that city taxpayers no longer need to pay anything into it at all."
A direct quote form a Steve Collins
article from January 2008, posted on this blog. What extra money Steve? Did they pull it out of a hat?

Anonymous said...

An interesting thing to note is that Collins expects average Joe bloggers to be completely accurate with their posts, yet in articles published in the newspaper he misstates facts. For instance in the quote above, he insinuates that there is a single municipal pension trust fund, when in fact, there are three separate funds, each with their own distinct language and their own board of trustees. The language is in the city charter, as well as the separate collective bargaining agreements, (police, fire municipal emoloyees), The funds are mingled for investment purposes only, but accounted for separately. The mingling of funds only came about less than ten years ago. This was set up so that investment decisions could be expedited, since the stock market is so volatile. In effect, the individual boards give the city's investment advisors a rubber stamp.

Anonymous said...

Again, the surplus goes into the Fund BHalance! Period.