Budget Fails A Second Time, Contentious Council Cuts $590k More

By John Voket

It appears the “statistically insignificant” came out again Tuesday to voice their opinion on the latest budget proposal — and this time they brought 38 of their friends and defeated the measure by 91 votes. But it was the significant increase in dissenting taxpayers overall that apparently inspired some Legislative Council members to propose draconian measures to arrive at an acceptable bottom line.

Several town officials who gathered to hear the final tallies Tuesday evening suggested that comments made after the first referendum failed by 53 votes — claiming the representation of dissenting voters was “statistically insignificant” — angered many who were still opposed to paying over six percent more in property taxes in the coming year.

After the second referendum failed last Tuesday with 2,350 against versus 2,259 supporting the proposal, the council convened Wednesday at Town Hall South to regroup and reformulate. Following nearly two hours of discussion, the council eventually settled on a $590,000 reduction.

The sometimes contentious session began with several impassioned public appeals that fell on both sides of the line separating those who wanted to hold the line and others who felt drastic measures were required following the second failed vote.

During the public portion of the meeting, Paul Ludanyi, who said he lived in town for almost 20 years, spoke on behalf of families and retirees.

“I propose you get your already sharpened pencils and cut the proposed budget by $3 million,” Mr Ludanyi said. “That would only be about three percent of the whole — that would be reasonable and significant in my opinion.”

Barbara Snyder said she decided to return to Newtown from Pennsylvania in 2002, after living in town some 20 years ago.

“I put aside $700 a month to pay my taxes and I can’t allow that to keep going up,” she said. “I love Newtown, I care about the schools and the children of this community. I want to live in a community where senior citizens and lower income people can afford to live here.”

Middle Gate School teacher Sue Zimmerman appealed to the council to make more cuts from the municipal side of the budget and to spare the remaining education spending proposal. She noted that the situation was so drastic in her own classroom that she recently had to go to an office store to buy her students pencils.

“Let’s see our services impacted this time; the kids paid last time around and they suffered greatly,” she said. “As a parent with children in the system and a taxpayer, I understand both sides of the fence, but I’m living [with budget cuts] every day in the system.”

Once the council members turned full attention to deliberations, it was Daniel Amaral who made the first proposal. The local business owner appealed to his fellow town leaders to heed the call of older and fixed-income residents who approached him in recent weeks worried they were being taxed out of the community.

Mr Amaral said he felt voters would soundly endorse a one-mill increase over last year’s spending plan. But to achieve that, he initially moved the council endorse a $1.2 million reduction. (A mill is equivalent to one dollar in tax to every $1,000 in assessed personal property)

After some calculating, it was determined that to achieve just a one mill increase, the reduction would only have to amount to $1.18 million, with $990,000 coming from the school budget and $190,000 from the town side.

That motion was met by immediate opposition from fellow council members Jeffrey Capeci, Keith Jacobs, and Patricia Llodra.

“There’s great value in our school system, and I want to put forth a budget that is responsible,” Ms Llodra said. “And that cut is irresponsible.”

Ms Llodra appealed to the council to find a better balance between what is required to continue the best level of services while striving for a proposal that is concurrently affordable.

“Cutting one million from the schools is an egregious violation of the trust placed in us by the voters,” Ms Llodra said.

Councilman Michael Iassogna weighed in, saying, “I believe taking a million or anywhere near one million [dollars] is unacceptable.”

First District Councilman Francis Pennarola reminded fellow officials that it was not the council’s job to present a budget that would get past the voters. “I believe our job is to pass on a budget we believe in, that meets the need of the town and the needs of the school system,” he said.

A few moments later, chairman William Rodgers called for a vote on Mr Amaral’s proposal, and the motion failed with only Mr Rodgers and Mr Amaral in support. Then Mr Jacobs countered with a motion he originally attempted to put forward as an amendment earlier in the discussion, to cut just $100,000 from the proposal.

This idea met with almost equal opposition from several council members and First Selectman Herb Rosenthal who sits as an ex-officio on the council.

“If you take just $100,000, it’s an insult to the process,” Mr Rosenthal said. “When a No [budget] vote goes up by 600 with no organized opposition; when you lose twice, you have to give more credit to the people who voted.”

That motion then failed by an 11-1 margin with only Mr Jacobs supporting his own proposal.

Joseph DiCandido then suggested a $700,000 cut affecting a proportionate 70/30 split between the school system and the town side was the way to go. He justified the idea saying he felt taxpayers would support a new proposal cut by another three-tenths of a mill.

After a brief recess, the council returned to a motion by David Brown to cut $885,000, which was met with a proposed amendment by Mr Capeci to reduce the proposal by $100,000. After more discussion both the amendment and main motion failed.

The next attempt was made by Ms Llodra who proposed just a $295,000 cut, equating a one-tenth mill decrease. That motion came to a tie with six supporting and six dissenting.

Then it was Mr Pennarola’s turn to move for a two-tenths of a mill cut, which would effect an additional $414,000 reduction to the schools and a $176,000 reduction to the municipal-side budget proposal. Mr Jacobs quickly sought to amend that motion to split the reductions 50/50 instead of the previously agreed-upon 70/30 split, with the Board of Education bearing the brunt of the cuts.

Mr DiCandido countered Mr Jacobs saying the move would be “…doing a disservice to the town.”

“Today there are more taxpayers who are not using the school system and still supporting it,” Mr DiCandido said.

Mr Pennarola’s motion then went to a vote and passed by a 7-5 margin, and after authorizing Town Finance Director Benjamin Spragg to make any adjustments to the proposal and submit the revised package to the town clerk, the meeting adjourned.

Following the meeting, Mr Rodgers said he was personally disappointed with the outcome.

“Voters have to realize that certain council members feel bound to the particular constituencies who elected them,” Mr Rodgers said. “I would encourage people who support further reductions to step from behind the voting curtain and attend the town meeting to make further motions to that affect.”