Council Cuts $750K—

Budget Fails

By 75 Votes

By John Voket

With the end of her first term on the Legislative Council approaching, Patricia Llodra took a leading role Wednesday evening recommending a $750,000 reduction in the budget. If approved, the reduction would cut about a two-tenths of a mill from the original proposal.

That first, and what several town leaders hoped would be the only, local budget referendum failed Tuesday by 75 votes. Approximately 22 percent of the qualified registered voters turned out to cast votes at Newtown Middle School.

According to LeReine Frampton, the Democratic Registrar of Voters, the final vote tally was 1,752 votes in favor and 1,827 against the proposal. This was the first year the municipal spending package combining town and school needs exceeded $100 million.

The proposal, which was recommended by the Board of Finance and endorsed by the Legislative Council without further cuts, totaled $102,232,877. The council convened the following evening to deliberate further cuts and recommend a date for the next referendum.

A Tuesday, May 8, date was recommended to the Board of Selectmen for approval. First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said he would call a special meeting Friday or Monday to present the recommended cut and referendum date to his fellow selectmen.

Prior to Wednesday’s deliberations, school board Chairman Elaine McClure spoke to the council clarifying some points that she said were reported in error in a local daily newspaper. She pointed out that a computer conversion budgeted for several local schools would be a Mac to PC platform switch, not a PC to Mac program that was stated in an article Wednesday morning.

“We are on PCs for every school except Head O’ Meadow and Middle Gate,” Ms McClure said. She added that the criticism that there are too many computers in the classrooms already did not bear out upon her making calls to the schools.

Mr Rosenthal then briefed the council on the latest news from Hartford. Among the issues he discussed was the House Democrats’ budget proposal that would net Newtown about $58,000 more in state aid than the governor’s proposal.

Moving to the business at hand, council member Daniel Amaral recommended a $1.2 million cut designating a 63/37 split between the school and town sides of the proposal. Vice Chair Timothy Holian called the proposal “intriguing,” saying Mr Amaral’s move, if approved, would bring the mill rate to 28.6.

“That brings us under a five percent increase, which in my nine years on the council has been historically palatable to the taxpayer,” he said.

Ms Llodra asked about other areas where the town might realize further reductions, which prompted Mr Rosenthal to factor the possible increase in state reimbursement with about $33,000 from health insurance savings.

Councilman Keith Jacobs then asked Mr Amaral to justify why he was recommending such a significant cut. Mr Amaral said he had heard from numerous voters all calling for substantial cuts to a recommendation that was passed on to the first referendum as approved by the finance board.

Mr Amaral also referenced the association between passing the budget and a likely bond rating increase.

“If you don’t get a better rating, it can cost us more,” Mr Amaral explained.

Mr Jacobs persisted, saying taxpayers wanted to know more about the thinking behind the process of suggesting budget reductions. He then ventured from the subject, questioning Mr Amaral’s about his pricing policy at his automotive service station.

“If your true concern is for the taxpayer, and their burden…I would like to know why your gas prices are 10 to 12 cents higher than the other gas [stations] in town when they are buying at the same wholesale cost as you?” Mr Jacobs asked.

Chairman Will Rodgers cut off the discussion at that point stating Mr Jacobs’ observation and question was out of order.

Councilman David Brown then offered some reasoning behind why the voter turnout at the budget referendum was so low. He said the low ratio of voters turning out to support the budget was tantamount to a No vote from those opting out of the process.

Mr Brown also wondered aloud why the 400 people attending a recent council meeting were unable to motivate many others to come out and support the budget, versus seeing further reductions in town and education services that the council supported as proposed by the Board of Finance.

After some further discussion, during which open space purchasing and the proposed contribution to a nonrecurring fund were examined, Mr Rosenthal proposed moving $342,000 from the school board budget to a bond initiative to fund the final phase of Mac to PC computer conversions at the town elementary level.

Before that consideration was deliberated, Mr Rodgers called for a vote on Mr Amaral’s proposal, which failed in a 6-6 tie. After a brief recess, Ms Llodra returned with an idea for the $750,000 reduction.

The council recessed again to formulate the motion and returned to hear Ms Llodra detail a school/town split designating $542,000 in cuts from the school side, and $150,000 from the town side, factoring in the $58,000 in additional anticipated state revenue Mr Rosenthal mentioned earlier.

Her breakdown incorporated the $342,000 transfer of technology spending to a bond issue, with another $200,000 in unspecified reductions to be left to the discretion of the school board. On the town side, she suggested $143,000 in unspecified cuts with $7,000 making up the difference between debt service on the added computer bonding and the additional $33,000 from health insurance savings.

While town Finance Director Benjamin Spragg initially suggested building the borrowing into a larger December bond issue, the idea of using a 20-year program, in effect, to fund operational costs on rapidly depreciating technology elicited strong negative reactions from council members Michael Iassogna, Joseph DiCandido, Mr Amaral, and Mr Rodgers.

Mr DiCandido then suggested simplifying the matter and proposed a replacement motion to make an $800,000 cut doling out 33 percent in reductions to the town and the balance to the school district. This motion failed by a 6-6 vote as well. Mr Amaral then came back with a motion to take $900,000, which would amount to two-thirds of a mill reduction.

A mill represents one dollar for every $1,000 in assessed property.

That proposal failed by a 7-5 margin, precipitating a return to Ms Llodra’s original motion, which was amended with a resolution that the council would support the modest bond initiative if the voters endorsed the overall budget proposal in the next referendum.

Council member Jeff Capici then offered a replacement motion to allow the school board latitude to not purchase the computers this year, thereby deferring the borrowing. That motion failed 6-6.

The final vote on Ms Llodra’s proposal was then called, and subsequently passed 8-4.

Mr Rosenthal contacted The Bee Thursday pledging to pursue a short-term borrowing initiative, and not build the pending technology purchase into the larger 20-year bond initiative.

“If the budget passes, we will recommend short term financing, either notes or leases for the life of the computers for the time the Board of Ed generally keeps them - 4 or 5 years,” he said. “I will not support long term bonding for them when the time comes for the actual appropriation that will have to go back to the voters.”

Mr Rosenthal said the Board of Finance will also have a voice in the appropriation process. 

“The intention was to give the taxpayers a break in the mill rate for their annual taxes and still purchase the needed computers for the children,” the first selectman said.

Pending the selectmen’s approval of the reduction and proposed referendum date of May 8, voters and qualified taxpayers can either apply for absentee ballots or plan to turn out to the middle school to vote that day between 6 am and 8 pm.

According to Town Clerk Cynthia Simon, absentee ballots will be available the next business day after the Board of Selectmen endorse the reduction and May 8 referendum proposal.