Forum Addresses Questions And Urges Budget Passage

By John Voket

The failure of Newtown’s first round budget proposal prompted a first-of-its-kind forum May 7 with First Selectman Pat Llodra and leaders from the Boards of Education and Finance and the Legislative Council gathering to clarify information, respond to taxpayer questions and uniformly advocate for a second-round passage of a revised spending plan.

The first round budget failed by 607 votes April 24, the largest margin of defeat since 2003. A second-round referendum is set for Tuesday, May 15, when polls at Newtown Middle School will be open from 6 am to 8 pm.

Absentee ballots for that next budget vote are available now at the town clerk’s office, and a special Saturday session for absentee balloting is set for May 12 from 9 am to noon.

The second budget request reflects a $1 million reduction made to the school district proposal by the Legislative Council after the first round rejection. The revised request of $106,806,523, if passed on May 15, will result in a tax rate of 24.6 mills and a 1.28 percent increase over the current budget.

That request would still provide a 0.57 percent increase to the school district over the current year’s budget. The council opted to not reduce the town-side budget, which currently reflects a 0.43 percent increase.

Mrs Llodra said that would increase the average local property tax bill of $8,000 by $103.

About 50 residents were on hand for the event. Moderated by Newtown Bee Editor Curtiss Clark, play-by-play from the forum was also posted live on the newspaper’s Twitter site.

(The Town of Newtown produced a video of the event which is available for viewing online at the town’s website and at newtownbee.com. The video will also be shown on Channel 17 on the Charter cable system.)

The first issue raised Monday evening related to the increasing school budget as overall student population is dwindling. School Board Chairman Debbie Leidlein responded that the threshold that would justify cost-saving consolidating has not occurred yet in any of the four local schools.

She also said there are increased costs related to curriculum and other improvements at the high school level that have been recommended by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) ahead of the district seeking its next accreditation from the regional agency.

Saying, “We hear the taxpayer concerns,” Ms Leidlein said her board will be watching the elementary situation closely with an eye on reducing the number of classes as the next school year approaches.

And she reasserted that the Board of Education is steadily progressing toward its goal to be transparent, including the integration of a new transfer policy that will flag money in the budget before it is moved or reallocated by administrators.

 

Fund Balance Allocation

The next question, related to a $400,000 allocation to bring the town fund balance closer to conforming to municipal bond rating agency directives, was directed to finance board Chairman John Kortze. Mr Kortze quickly reviewed his board’s role in the process indicating it has both statutory and advisory functions.

He then explained that the low ratio in Newtown’s fund balance appears to be a barrier to receiving a bond rating upgrade, and that continuing to maintain an underfunded balance may contribute to a rating downgrade.

The finance board chair said the effect of a downgrade would translate into a financial penalty to every taxpayer in town, and the potential for higher borrowing costs for capital projects would be borne out over the typical 20-year life of a bond repayment.

For that reason, Mr Kortze said the cumulative impact of a downgrade would be much more costly in the long-run, and that the one-time investment of $400,000 to bring Newtown’s fund balance up to what would be eight percent of the overall spending plan is important to accomplish at this time.

Council Chairman Jeff Capeci and Education Committee Chair Kathryn Fetchick both weighed in on why the council reduced the school district’s requested increase after the first-round referendum failure, instead of splitting a reduction proportionately between the town and district proposals.

Mr Capeci responded that the sheer number of taxpayers voting No warranted a “significant cut,” and the $1 million mark was the right place to start. Ms Fetchick added that a post-vote analysis proved the taxpayers who cast ballots were not happy with the request. She said since the proportionate requested increase was so much higher on the school district side of the budget, it justified the reduction from the school proposal.

Councilman Paul Lundquist, who cast the only vote against the council’s action after his failed amendment to affect a proportional 70/30 split reduction, said Monday that he could not discern after the first-round failure that taxpayers wanted to see the entire reduction come from the district’s request.

Mr Lundquist did speak to the detail and clarity of the town-side proposal, however, saying the budget document from Ms Llodra and Finance Director Robert Tait was “crystal clear.”

If It Fails

Responding to a question about where the council might go if the second-round proposal fails on May 15, Mr Capeci said he would have to wait and see how many No votes are cast and what constituents were telling their representatives following the next referendum.

The council chairman then said it was unfortunate a charter revision that would have provided ballot questions to better direct officials in the event of a budget failure did not come to fruition because too few voters turned out to vote on the revision. And he committed to seating another charter review panel in the hope of bringing the ballot question initiative back before voters.

Mrs Llodra and Mr Tait responded to questions about components of the town budget that drive up costs the most, what savings measures the town has put in place, and how the town might move forward growing the local commercial tax base to offset increases on homeowners.

Clarifying what a zero increase would look like overall, Mr Tait said an additional $1.2 million would have to be reduced.

Ms Fetchick added that to bring the school district down to a flat level would require a reduction of $384,000. And to reach the lowest threshold allowed under the Minimum Budget Requirement would require reduction not to exceed $622,000.Mrs Llodra also pointed out that about 25 percent of the town-side increase was to cover debt service on capital expenditures, which are primarily school district projects.

As the forum wrapped up, officials including council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob, school board Vice Chair Laura Roche, school board member John Vouros, and Mrs Llodra all appealed to taxpayers to support the second-round referendum.

Mr Capeci confirmed after the forum that he welcomes any taxpayer who wishes to express their preference for the budget to contact him, any or every member of the council. Find all council members’ phone and email contact information at www.newtown-ct.gov under the “Boards & Commissions” tab, Legislative Council link.

Members of the panel also said that any additional questions or thoughts would be posted following the forum in The Bee, and on line at Newtownbee.com. That follow-up report appears in today’s edition and on the newspaper’s website.