By: Buck Fuller
On October 16, 2023, the City Council held its last session before the upcoming elections on November 7, 2023.
This was a chance for the City management to whisper into the City Councilors’ ears how they can explain the huge budget increases passed by City Council for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Budget Years. Running up to next week’s election, the City Council, and especially the Mayor, have to go out and explain just why so much money was spent.
It’s no surprise that these candidates for re-election have sounded a tad defensive when out asking for votes.
Look at the following chart. The budget numbers come from the City and are plotted in orange. The regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) is in blue, and the Portsmouth population plot is grey.
The City presented a chart for the same period that had so much data plotted, it was nonsensical. One could not draw conclusions on the City’s chart.
Perhaps that was why the City presented it. This one, we think, is cleaner and tells an important story.
This chart presents the City budget, the regional CPI to show inflation, and population. Each series is set to a benchmark 100 for 2016. That way, you can see the growth of all three from 2016 to 2024.
As you can see, the City’s budget has grown steadily over the past 8 years.
The only pause in the growth was when the Becksted 5 City Council slowed the budget’s growth rate in Fiscal Year 2021. Remember that Covid hit at that time, and it disrupted many activities. Managing through that time while slowing the growth rate of expenditures to less than 1% was a challenge.
Contrast this with the next City Council, led by Mayor Deaglan McEachern, and aptly named “The Boondoggle 9” for its free-spending ways. The growth rate in the City’s budgets resumed and exceeded the pace seen prior to the Becksted 5.
Granted inflationary pressures also rose during the time of the Boondogle 9. But anything gained by the Becksted 5’s efforts was quickly lost under the new City Council. The management style of Mayor Becksted versus Mayor McEachern couldn’t be more different, and the financial results show.
If you watch the hour-plus long presentation by the City staff, you will pick up additional details regarding the current budget passed by Mayor McEachern and the present City Council.
Let us highlight three points that we feel demonstrate taxpayer abuse, missed opportunities and the entitled attitude of the City Manager.
- Beyond the Chart: Surpluses
For about the tenth year in a row, the City has run a million dollar-plus surplus. The estimated surplus for Fiscal Year 2023 (just ended on June 30, 2023) is $7.2 million. Each year there are explanations given.
But the bottom line is that the taxpayers are taxed at a significantly higher rate than necessary for services they never receive. Admittedly, forecasting is an art, but to consistently err on the side of a fatter City budget than necessary is expensive for the taxpayer.
The City hastens to say that the surplus is rolled over each year to the next year’s budget.
But it constitutes an interest-free “loan” by the taxpayer to the City, allowing it to make its poor estimates without any consequence.
Judith Belanger, the City Finance Director, does acknowledge that if the surplus got to be too big, City residents would justifiably complain of being overtaxed. Perhaps, after ten years, they might justifiably complain today!
- Beyond the Chart: The Real Cost of Outdoor Dining
Ben Fletcher, the Director of Parking for the City, was refreshingly straightforward in his presentation. Computing the real cost to the City of lost revenue from street parking by setting aside parking spaces for outdoor dining is important.
The City has said it needs more revenue. So, the question that should arise in the Council’s mind is whether the City is charging restaurants enough for the spaces the restaurants use for dining tables?
Mr. Fletcher calculates that the spaces allocated for outdoor dining should generate $116,121.29 in parking receipts. For the 2023 season, the City charged restaurants a total of $57,000 for these spaces. That means that the City “only” lost $59,155.05 in parking revenue. Why should the City subsidize this? Why doesn’t it increase the “rent” it charges the restaurant and make the loss closer to breakeven? Or even charge above breakeven to produce revenue for the City?
Unfortunately, the City Council is happy to lose money, costing the taxpayer more.
- Beyond the Chart: The Entitled City Manager
Much has been said and written about how the City staff (read Administration) expanded by 36 positions over the two budget years, 2022 – 2023 and 2023 – 2024.
City Manager Karen Conard, who requested these larger budgets and expanded number of positions, felt she needed to explain why so many positions were required.
Except when it came time for her to speak, she could just say that many of these new positions were filled by people who worked around her.
She did say that like her, they all worked really hard. That apparently was a sufficient explanation for why so many people were hired.
She did have a confusing table of numbers explaining why there were only 27.1 full-time positions added, but she never really walked the reader through the table. And what happens next year when these positions grow into 12-month FTEs? Either she felt it was too complicated to explain or that we taxpayers could never understand it.
Pity the Poor City Council
The City Council and the Mayor are left out to dry.
The taxpayer may be impressed that City management pulled a fast one over City Council. But it’s the job of City Council to Just Say No, as we have stated before.
Neither the Mayor nor City Council did say, “No.”
Now it’s left up to the taxpayer: do you want more easy-spending by the Boondoggle 9? Or maybe a saner Becksted 5 to determine your future taxes? What say you?
