Paying More for Less in Bloomfield: Part 7 - Panic on the Dais and the Billing Intercept Scandal
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
(Did you miss the previous article? Catch up on Part 6 of the series here.)
BLOOMFIELD, CT - June 1, 2026. When 1,165 verified Bloomfield residents forced a June 6 referendum on the $118,445,032 FY2027 Adopted Budget, they exercised a basic democratic right. They called for transparency, accountability, and a direct voice in their financial future.
The town's executive leadership responded with what can only be described as a meltdown.
Instead of addressing the data that led residents to sign the petition, like the early "golden parachute" payouts or the 5.88% average tax increase for homeowners, some Bloomfield Town Council members have turned to social media to criticize their own constituents, limit public debate, and misrepresent the budget they approved.
The Social Media Spin Room
The panic on the dais is palpable, and it is playing out in real-time across community forums.
Over the weekend, Councilor Todd Cooper posted a lengthy defense of the budget on the Bloomfield, CT Community Forum. Attempting to dismiss resident concerns about the rising tax burden, Cooper posted a list of historical mill rates, claiming it tells the "story of factual truth." He listed the FY2027 rate as 35.65 mills.
This is not accurate. The 35.65 mill rate was only the Town Manager's proposal. The rate the Town Council actually sent to referendum, the Adopted rate, is 34.40 mills. It is concerning to see a councilor use the wrong budget number to lecture taxpayers about "factual truth." Moreover, Cooper voted to adopt the 34.40 mill rate. He's not citing someone else's number wrong—he's citing his own vote incorrectly.
Cooper also said the 11.6% baseline increase mentioned by critics is "an outlier," and argued that tax increases in Bloomfield are "not the budget, that's outside pressures" from housing supply. These claims do not match the public record. The 11.6% baseline came from the administration's own "status-quo rollforward" math, presented by the Town Manager in April. While revaluation changes who pays more or less, the budget sets the total amount collected. As Finance Director Darrell V. Hill testified on May 6, this budget will raise the average Bloomfield homeowner's taxes by 5.88%, or about $524 more this year. Cooper voted yes on that budget. The 5.88% tax hike is the consequence of decisions he and his colleagues made — not of "outside pressures."
Tellingly, after posting his defense, Cooper restricted the post's privacy settings so no one could comment. The information was published, but the discussion was shut down.
Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd went even further, taking an even more aggressive posture. On her personal Facebook page—locked down so that only her "friends of friends" could view it—Lloyd posted a blistering, capitalized attack on budget critics. A concerned reader forwarded a screenshot of the post to the Dispatch.
"Please STOP Listening to Lies from those FEAR MONGERING, ABUSING YOUR EMOTIONS, PANDERING FOR SUPPORT AND FUTURE VOTES-Predicated upon dishonesty," the Deputy Mayor wrote. Claiming that the budget's "bloat" is a lie, she issued an ultimatum to the very taxpayers who fund her administration: "And plz do not be ignorant or troll my page... You will be blocked."
This defensive, exclusionary posturing stands in stark contrast to Councilor Darrell Goodwin, who used his own Facebook page to remind residents — without attacking them — that a citizen-forced referendum is local democracy functioning exactly as designed.
The Official Silence
Beyond the social media activity, the town's formal channels have been quiet. On May 29, the Dispatch submitted a five-question media inquiry to Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie (pursuant to the Town Manager's April 21 directive), with copies to Town Manager Schwapp, Finance Director Hill, Town Clerk DiStephan, and every sitting councilor. The questions covered Charter Section 502 residency compliance, the FOIA-routing pattern, the Moody's withdrawal omission, the Council's $156,882 Ops & Comms FTE reduction, and the preemptive engagement of outside pension counsel for the 11 retirement packages.
As of publication — more than 48 hours after the 6:30 PM Friday deadline — no member of the town's executive leadership has responded, commented, or provided a justification through official channels. The only town responses to the referendum, so far, have come from individual councilors writing on their personal social media accounts.
The Billing Intercept Scandal
The silence is calculated. So is the panic. Both make sense once you understand what is actually being defended: a system that has quietly converted routine resident inquiries — the kind other Connecticut towns handle with a clerk and an email — into formal FOIA matters processed by an outside law firm at premium hourly rates. The Dispatch calls this pattern the Billing Intercept.
The Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (C.G.S. §§ 1-200 et seq., with the records access provision at § 1-210) gives residents the right to access public records. This is key to holding local government accountable. But in Bloomfield, the administration treats ordinary resident questions as legal risks to be handled by expensive lawyers, not as routine customer service to be handled by regular town staff.
When residents ask questions or request basic town documents, the administration often treats these as formal FOIA requests. Instead of having a clerk send the document, the administration sends the request straight to outside lawyers at the Crumbie Law Group for "review."
Every time the outside Town Attorney handles an email, the legal fees add up. Taxpayers end up paying high legal bills just to get their basic questions answered. This practice increases private legal costs for taxpayers and delays public information, oversight, and ultimately, accountability.
Unfortunately, this is not a rare event; it's become a regular pattern. Records from the State of Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission (Docket # FIC 2024-0425) show that the town administration spent months fighting one person's FOIA request to see the invoices from the Crumbie Law Group. The administration used the town attorney to prevent a taxpayer from seeing what they were being billed for — the very same attorney who was the subject of the inquiry into the billing practices was used to block the request for information.
In the FY2027 Adopted Budget, the Town Attorney line item is $293,640—an absurd figure that assumes a massive 50% drop from the $608,796 in actual legal expenses the town has projected for FY2026. If the administration continues to use these lawyers as a taxpayer-funded shield against routine administrative requests, that $293,640 annual budget will be completely spent within months, just like it was this year.
The Revenue Solutions Ignored
The real irony of the social media uproar is that the Town Council says it had no choice but to raise taxes by 5.88%. They claim "outside pressures" forced their hand. However, a review of Connecticut General Statutes shows that the administration ignored modern, cost-effective legal strategies that could have raised millions to help fund the revaluation phase-in.
Instead of attacking voters, the Council could have implemented the following tools:
- The Stormwater Authority Enterprise Fund (Public Act 21-115): Currently, Bloomfield property taxpayers subsidize millions in drainage and MS4 environmental compliance costs out of the General Fund. By establishing a Stormwater Authority, the town can assess a legal "user fee" based on impervious surface areas—things like parking lots and massive roofs. Because it is a fee, not a tax, it legally forces massive tax-exempt properties—such as large private nonprofits (e.g., mega churches) and specialized commercial campuses—to finally pay their fair share (with certain statutory exemptions). This shifts the burden from residential homeowners' backs, providing them with some relief.
- Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Devices (Public Act 23-116): Bloomfield deals with fast, out-of-town commuter traffic in its neighborhoods. A new state law lets the town install automated speed and red-light cameras in safety zones. These fines bring in money only from people who break the law—mostly non-residents speeding through the Town's major thoroughfares like Blue Hills Avenue (Route 187), Cottage Grove Road (Route 218), and Granby Street (Route 189) to get to work in Hartford, Windsor, or West Hartford. This solution generates dedicated revenue for traffic and pedestrian safety projects that would otherwise compete with general fund spending — relieving pressure on the Police and DPW line items that currently carry those costs.
Real leadership doesn't involve silencing Facebook comments or threatening to block constituents who ask questions about a $118.4 million budget. It requires using every available legal tool to protect the residents and taxpayers. On June 6, Bloomfield will decide which direction its town will take.
Next in the Series:
In Part 8: The Structural Staffing Illusion, the Dispatch will analyze the Police Department ledger, revealing how the adopted budget balances the books today by holding four critical public safety FTEs vacant—creating an accounting illusion that jeopardizes core municipal services.
Comments
Post a Comment