You can’t fight Brewer’s city hall

We’ve all heard the expression “You can’t fight city hall.” I’ve learned in recent weeks that nowhere is this more true than in Brewer.

It appears as though the administration at Brewer City Hall is comfortable with the status quo and seeks to maintain such, disregarding the concerns of taxpayers. In front of this city council, an attempt to question or clarify is met with hostility and disdain. This leads the council to falsely believe that they represent the people without actually listening to the people.

Point in fact is the recent scheduling of a meeting to approve the city budget on a Monday morning, when the working taxpayers are required to be at their jobs. The proprietary notice for this meeting was debated. The city’s own calendar failed to list the meeting. A call to Clear Channel relations did not substantiate the claim that information regarding the meeting was sent to area radio stations. The lack of notice, in time and media, suggests “rubber stamping” by the council. Perhaps city government does not want to be governed.

The BDN article of June 29 touched on the morning meeting. What follows are some issues which were raised concerning the city budget. Studying the budget brought to light concerns related to numbers presented in the budget. In some departments, heating expenses rose 30 to 40 percent while other departments had no increases in their heating budget. Some departments had no increases in their gasoline budget, yet others had 30 to 40 percent increases. Many city departments had 30 to 50 percent decreases in their health care line but some departments had 60 to 70 percent increases. How can the city council approve a budget that clearly states the wastewater finances were incomplete in the budget presented to them?

Another disturbing aspect shows hugely disproportionate salary in-creases. Some departments are receiving 0.5 percent increases while others are receiving 8.4 percent increases. The city manager and the economic development director (both hired in 1999) receive “other compensation” of $8,650 and $13,775, in addition to their salaries of $88,943 and $90,136.

For comparison: In a city three times the population of Brewer, their city manager (hired in 1988) earns $99,000, with no “other compensation.” Their economic development director (hired in 1976) earns $75,000, with no “other compensation.” Usually if you do your job well you get to keep your job and if you do it poorly, you are replaced. I guess in Brewer if you do your job you get huge bonuses.

Numerous errors were found in the printed budget. In addition, the Homestead Exemption figure in the budget was $64,000, not the $80,000 figure that was referred to many times by city council members. I also questioned why one city employee’s salary was listed in two different areas and had two different amounts for salary. To me an error of $3,000 (though quite small considering the $26.7 million budget) is one that needs to be examined. After all, if I found these errors, are there more?

I would like to point out two items of interest. On page one of the city budget, City Manager Steve Bost states that Brewer residents whose homes are assessed at $100,000 will see a decrease in taxes of $112, unless their homes are classified as Class C properties (older homes). These will see a modest increase of 3 percent in their valuations, yet they will still see a $52 decrease in their taxes. Bost calls this $52 decrease a “noticeable decrease.”

Since when is $52 a noticeable decrease? That translates into a $4.33-a-month decrease in taxes. If this is a noticeable decrease, then our water rates rising by $5 a month must be a noticeable increase. The proposed 11 percent sewer rate increase of $4 a month must also be a noticeable increase. If $52 is a noticeable decrease, then what would you describe my more than $350 increase in property taxes last year? Colossal? Stupendous? Gigantic? Extraordinary? If $52 is a noticeable decrease, then what words do we use to describe the $3,000 to $4,000 raises some city employees are receiving this year? I can’t imagine.

I have approached the subject of televising council meetings in two prior city council meetings. I was informed by Councilor Michael Celli that it would cost $30,000, while Councilor Larry Doughty stated it would cost $50,000. Since no one has a good idea of the cost, why then don’t the city manager and the city council explore the cost of televising the council meetings, planning board meetings and water and sewer department meetings? City government is quick to approve spending more than $1 million to move city hall to the former mill in South Brewer, and $4.1 million for waterfront development, but won’t investigate the cost to televise city meetings.

Why? Give the average taxpayer easy access to what is happening in our city. Hampden just approved televising their city council meetings. Why won’t Brewer?

This gives a more complete picture of the concerns brought to light in city council chambers on June 28’s 8:15 a.m. meeting. I’d like to thank Larry Ayotte for videotaping the council meeting.

If anyone would like to view the meeting, please contact me at kevin.duplissie@maine.edu. Then you can come to your own conclusions whether I was “grandstanding,” as Mayor Joseph Ferris calls it, or just an ordinary taxpayer questioning how our monies are being spent.

Kevin L. Duplissie lives in Brewer.