Budget Fails Again; Council Cuts Another Million

By John Voket

After a second attempt to pass a municipal budget proposal failed by a 390-vote margin Tuesday, Legislative Council members agreed on an additional net reduction of $1 million from the townwide spending package Wednesday evening. The final tally on the second referendum totaled 2,162 in favor, and 2,552 against the $101.5 million proposal.

While the outcome proved a more decisive victory for budget opponents, the turnout totaling just under 30 percent of qualified voters was nonetheless frustrating for Democratic Registrar of Voters LeReine Frampton.

“There are 15,957 qualified voters in Newtown. Where were they?” she asked as poll workers disassembled voting cubicles in the gym at Newtown Middle School. First Selectman Herb Rosenthal noted the voter turnout was up almost eight percent from the first referendum two weeks ago, which took place on the second day after spring break.

“The voter turnout was up more than 1,100 from last time, but it’s still less than 30 percent,” Mr Rosenthal said. “It certainly was more decisive.”

The first referendum on April 24 failed by 75 votes. After that mandate, the council cut $750,000, or two-tenths of a mill. A mill equals $1 for every $1,000 in assessed property.

Some residents who wrote to The Newtown Bee and who spoke before this week’s deliberations suggested a recommendation by council member Patricia Llodra to wash $542,000 in cuts from the school side against $342,000 in technology spending through a bond or lease, may have raised the ire of additional taxpayers who then turned out in greater numbers to defeat the second budget.

Critics of the plan were quick to point out that the borrowing measure reduced the amount of the actual cut, spreading out taxpayer spending on the school technology initiative, which several council members and all but one finance board member labeled as an operational cost.

Others who spoke during this week’s meeting suggested the higher turnout of budget opponents may have represented school supporters who wanted to send a message to increase the education expenditures. A third contingent of taxpayers who spoke to council members Wednesday believe the No voters were protesting either the computer spending proposal, local political controversies, or the creation of municipal offices on the Fairfield Hills campus.

During a break in deliberations, one audience member clarified with town Finance Director Benjamin Spragg that the council had an option to reduce the budget proposal by pulling or delaying debt service on a $6 million bond issue that would underwrite demolition, playing fields, and some cosmetic and landscape finishing aspects of the municipal office project.

That issue, however, was not part of any discussion during deliberations or numerous motions that played out during the three-hour meeting. Following public comment, which was heavily dominated by education supporters, a clarification occurred because the council was forced to initiate cuts from the original proposal tendered by the finance board and not from the most recent budget package that was defeated this week.

This occurred, according to council chair Will Rodgers, because the second failed proposal incorporated the hybrid technology spending. Since the second budget reduction did not result from a simple net cut to the budget, the prevailing No vote triggered a dismissal of the entire package.

The only aspect that carried through the process was $58,000 in revenue from anticipated state grants.

Starting from the original number of $102,232,877 councilman Francis Pennarola moved a $1.2 million cut split 50/50 between the town and school district. He further stipulated the town side cuts to generate $200,000 reductions from the capital nonrecurring fund appropriation and road improvements with the balance coming at the discretion of the first selectman.

Mr Pennarola said he came to the meeting with a different number in mind but adjusted that cut after hearing the numerous impassioned requests from taxpayers during public commentary. He acknowledged that the council could not know what was in the minds of voters who turned down Tuesday’s referendum.

“This cut recognizes the No vote, and also recognizes the original budget proposal which we felt met the needs of the town,” he said. “But we have to cut it.”

Almost a half-hour of subsequent conversation ensued attempting to fix a reason behind the marked increase in No votes on the second referendum. Council member Keith Jacobs said some of his constituents indicated they voted No because they opposed the town office plan at Fairfield Hills. Fellow councilman Michael Iassogna and Mr Pennarola, on the other hand, were told by constituents that dissatisfaction arose from the technology appropriation in the second proposal.

Joseph DiCandido said his contacts simply stated the spending was still too high.

“They want dramatic cuts,” Mr DiCandido told the council.

Council vice chair Timothy Holian said the $102 million proposal amounted to “sticker shock” to constituents who called him.

Mr Rodgers, Jeffrey Capeci, and David Brown all said they received calls echoing those concerns.

“I had several calls saying the budget was way out of whack compared to surrounding towns,” Mr Capeci said. Mr Rodgers said his calls were running three-to-one saying spending was too high.

“This council guaranteed the failure of the budget,” Mr Rodgers said referring to the panel taking no action on the first proposal from the finance board, and incorporating the computer spending in the second round. “It was a slap in the face to voters.”

Mr Jacobs said under the current mode of voting, with no advisory questions to gauge voter concerns at the polls, it might be important to articulate that turning down the budget never results in money being put back in the spending plan.

Mr Pennarola’s $1.2 million motion was then put to a vote and failed by a 6-6 tie. Councilman Daniel Amaral, who has maintained a budget increase should mirror the approximately three percent rate of inflation, then countered with a motion to cut $2.5 million in a two-to-one proportionate split between the schools and the town.

“People want to keep things even,” Mr Amaral said. “Other towns are up three percent. Why does Newtown have to go up six percent?”

Mr Brown then offered an amendment to make Mr Amaral’s proposed cuts a 50/50 split between the two sides. Mr Amaral’s original proposal failed by a 4-8 margin, but Mr Brown’s suggestion won support among the council members.

After a recess, Mr DiCandido compelled the council to “cut to the chase,” proposing a $2.25 million cut at a 60/40 spilt. Mr Brown again requested a 50/50 consideration, which was ultimately endorsed by the council.

Council member Stacie Doyle argued that such a cut would generate no growth in the school side proposal, and reminded the council that next year’s revaluation is pending. Ms Llodra added that such a reduction reflected “short term thinking.”

Mr DiCandido’s motion then failed in a 6-6 tie. He responded with an immediate suggestion to cut $1.75 million, which would net a six-tenths of a mill reduction and boost the spending proposal by about 3.7 percent.

“It is somewhat of a compromise,” he said. And his compromise was effective.

The resulting vote passed the package 10-2 with Mr Jacobs and Councilman Joseph Borst opposing.

After the meeting, Mr Jacobs said he voted No maintaining the cut was too deep.

“I’m not convinced the No vote was a directive to cut the budget,” Mr Jacobs said.