Budget, Fees & Pensions

In 2017, they emphasized the need for public clarity on pension figures, noting the importance of transparency [6]. In 2019, they supported the stabilization of pension funds but stressed the need for optimal returns for the community [20]. In 2025, they supported budget appropriation from insurance and pension funds for the fiscal year 24-5 [31].

Over time: From emphasizing public clarity on pension figures in 2017 [6], they later supported budget appropriation from pension funds in 2025 [31].

In 2016, David Lesser opposed potential property tax increases from hotel reassessments and questioned stormwater expenditures [1]. In 2017, he recommended focusing on pension funding strategies in the budget process and deferred pension fund decisions until February [2][4]. In 2018, he warned that pension liabilities could become a 'structural deficit' if not addressed promptly [7]. In 2021, he opposed 100% refinancing of Pension Obligation Bonds due to unrealistic discount rate assumptions [17]. In 2023, he expressed concerns about insufficient funding for seismic-study-priority parking lots and long-term projects like the Jocelyn Center [22][23]. In 2024, he argued for a sales tax increase to fund infrastructure improvements [27].

Over time: David Lesser shifted from recommending pension funding strategies in 2017 [2] to warning about pension liabilities becoming a 'structural deficit' in 2018 [7], and later to opposing 100% refinancing of Pension Obligation Bonds in 2021 due to unrealistic discount rate assumptions [17].

Mark Burton expressed concerns about pension obligations and their impact on staffing decisions in 2013 [3], and later proposed reducing full-time employee counts via attrition to mitigate pension liabilities in 2014 [12]. In 2016, he opposed a budget due to unapproved revenue additions and high salary figures [18], and requested clarification on investment strategies for the Pension Stabilization Reserve Fund [19]. He also supported an FTE cap to prioritize public safety and fiscal discipline [17].

Over time: Burton shifted from proposing attrition-based reductions to address pension liabilities in 2014 [12] to opposing a budget in 2016 due to unapproved revenue and high salary figures [18].

In 2017, they expressed concern about the feasibility of the 2018 implementation timeline [2], and questioned whether CDBG funds could be redirected to transit projects due to limited discretionary funds [3]. In 2018, they asked about timelines for specific infrastructure projects like Liberty Village paving and Marine Avenue resurfacing [5]. In 2022, they supported retaining the testing fund for employee peace of mind [10], defended the budget citing past recession resilience [12], and stressed the need to address a $1.1M unfunded pension liability [16]. In 2024, they expressed concerns about hiring timelines and workforce shortages [15].

Over time: They shifted from questioning CDBG fund allocation in 2017 [3] to emphasizing the need to address pension liabilities in 2024 [16].