Vote NO Bloomfield, CT - Letter from Dr. Biffer to Town Council

Letter from Dr. Jim Biffer to Bloomfield Town Council

Dr. Jim Biffer
Retired nuclear physicist, engineer, and mathematician
Author of four books on advanced math for the nuclear power industry
Former Bloomfield Board of Education member (three terms, 1980s)

Recently, I sent the following comments to the Town email address designed to gather citizen input to the budget process. I want everyone to know my suggestions and cautions to Councilors. Below is the entirety of my email:

Hello, Councilors,

I have identified about $3.6 MILLION that can be cut, and no one would ever know. Page references are to the TM’s Proposed Budget document you have.

1. Pg.22: Administration: many of the highest paid employees have only been working a few months, and were hired at the upper end of their market range. Given the revaluation and the addition of many highly-paid employees, I suggest a SALARY FREEZE at 2025 levels, and no performance raises. The previous staff set such a low bar, that even just doing one’s job seems god-like. The TM cannot possibly know if performance raises are justified yet, and we taxpayers certainly do not know. SAVINGS = $1.1 MILLION.

2. Pg. 23: Town Council: eliminate the slush fund of $21,040. That’s all it is. The things it covers are largely Communications functions, for which Strategic Communications has plenty of money. SAVINGS = $21,040.

3. Pg. 36: HR: their education and training budget is way out of line. Many departments have requested nothing or up to a few thousand dollars. HR wants over $60,000. I would cut $60,000 to bring them in line with other departments. Since we supposedly are paying for excellence, they don’t need to have taxpayer-funded junkets for training. Do what everyone else does: bring in a speaker, or have a zoom class. We should not be paying for big travel, lodging, food, etc. for one-person travel junkets. SAVINGS = $60,000.

4. Pg. 38-45: Boards and Commissions: There should be 1 pot of money to be doled out by the TM, not these individual budgets that never face public scrutiny when they are used. These groups think they have to spend it to prove they needed it, but, for all we know, it goes for parties and things not in the best interests of the Town. I would cut $30,000 from their total, make it 1 pot, controlled by the TM. SAVINGS = $30,000.

5. Pg. 47: Building Inspector: education and training budget out of line. Cut $2000. SAVINGS = $2000.

6. Pg. 48: Land Use: education and training out of line. Cut $3000. SAVINGS = $3000.

7. Pg. 58: DPW: education and training. Cut $10,000. SAVINGS = $10,000.

8. Pg. 84: Miscellaneous Charges: Council contingency is SUPPOSED to be for bona fide, unbudgeted emergencies, NOT a slush fund, which is how it has been used. Expenditures from it, by definition, have not gone through the budget process or faced public scrutiny, since they are supposed to be unforeseen emergencies. $50,000 is more than enough for such eventualities. SAVINGS = $350,000.

9. Pg. 84. TM Contingency: again, only a small amount is justified to cover unforeseen emergencies. It is not a slush fund. $50,000 is plenty. SAVINGS = $50,000.

10. Pg. 88: BOE: our school system has not justified even last year’s budget. It does not matter how the state chooses to mis-calculate the per-pupil cost, to purposely make it appear smaller. The reality to us taxpayers is, in the 2025 budget, they had over $55 MILLION for fewer than1900 kids, which is over $30,000 per student, for mediocre results and clear areas where student support is lacking or non-existent, and for which money is NOT the cure. I propose NO INCREASE to the BOE budget until performance improves. SAVINGS = $2 MILLION (approximately).

In the aggregate, these measures would save approximately $3.6 MILLION.

One caveat: I could not find budget lines for the Summer Bridge, CNA, or Trades programs. These SHOULD NOT be funded by our tax dollars. When Dr. Youngberg was asked directly about these by Councilors Harrington and Oliver, she stated, repeatedly, “why would you want to compete with the vast network of trade/technical high schools already established? We don’t have the staff, space, or equipment. You can’t compete, so why try?” Clearly, if she thought these programs were important, they would be in her budget. Let’s take her advice.

In a similar vein, I could not find the $80,000 STEM fund at Leisure Services, which we all know was a slush fund to finance the PRIVATE sports teams behind our backs, out of public scrutiny. If it is not in the budget, great, because no one at 330 Park is educationally qualified to put on STEM activities, and it is not explicitly in the BOE budget, so it should not be funded.

The final caveat: there must be NO ADDS by Councilors, or it negates any savings realized here. Again, even if the egregious tax increase from revaluation is phased in, the damage to taxpayers will be very real, and remembered in November. If all of these savings are implemented, the tax increase would be down to about 3%, which is the IRS and Social Security recognized cost of living increase heading into 2025. At least that can be justified as a legitimate cost of living increase, unlike 7.14%, which is insane in ANY year, but especially with revaluation.