Increase Now 1.07 Percent—

Council Refuses To Cut Services,

Reduces Fund Balance Expense By $200,000

By John Voket

After about two hours of deliberation and numerous amendment attempts, the Legislative Council on May 16 returned to its original motion and unanimously approved reducing a fund balance expense by $200,000. The move will put a new request of $106,606,523 to an anticipated third referendum, which officials are expecting to hold on Tuesday, June 5.

The revision, if approved by voters, would increase taxes by 1.07 percent. A proposal that would have increased taxation by 1.28 percent was defeated May 15 by 77 votes.

In April the council voted 10–1 to cut $1 million from the education budget request, feeling that frustration of voters and officials with school administration was much to blame for the failure of the initial budget referendum. Council Chairman Jeff Capeci said after the failed vote Tuesday, “What we did was not far from correct,” but the budget still failed, with 1,946 taxpayers voting Yes versus the prevailing 2,023 who cast No votes.

Before deliberations began Wednesday night, several members of the public voiced support for either holding the line, particularly for the sake of the education proposal, or finding money to add to the school district’s $68.3 million request.

Karen Pierce asked why officials were putting more energy toward protecting the town’s bond rating than enhancing the local education system. Michelle Assante called for a compromise that would affect the town and school budgets, as well as a proposed $400,000 infusion into the town’s undesignated fund balance.

“In other words, something to make everybody equally unhappy,” she said, eliciting chuckles from some of the council members and audience.

Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson asked the council to support the work of local educators “who have to work with very limited resources.”

“We are below status quo now,” Dr Robinson said.

Casey Regan told the officials she had voted Yes on both previous budgets, inferring that she was afraid each time that if the referendums failed, it would negatively effect the schools.

JoAnn Rosen said she brought her three children to the meeting to “see there are people trying to make education better.” Ms Rosen said growing up in a community in New Jersey where there were annual budget votes, she was always told “give the schools whatever they want.”

Administrators Heard Voters

School board member John Vouros couched his advocacy for maintaining enough funds for full-day kindergarten, saying there is “no better time to start the creative development than in full-day kindergarten.”

“Administrators have heard the voice of the voters,” said Mr Vouros, adding that school officials were already at work crafting compromises in their own budgets to try and fit the full-day program within the confines of the existing budget constraints.

Board of Education Chair Debbie Leidlein then spoke in an attempt to clarify rumors that she was supporting the elimination of the program, saying the current reductions to the board’s request will “make it more of a challenge to fund full-day kindergarten … but we have to put everything on the table.”

Bill Parisini was the only person who stated he voted No on both previous budgets, “not because the budget was too small, because the budget was too big.” And he urged the council to further reduce both the town and school proposals to further lower property taxes.

Turning to the task at hand, council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob proposed reducing the fund balance expense from $400,000 to $200,000. Saying, “I’m here for my children, too,” Ms Jacob defended her motion, stating Newtown “has a fine school system with wonderful teachers,” and that her own children are “getting a good education.”

“Reducing the contribution has two purposes,” Ms Jacob said. “We promised the rating agencies $200,000,” and the motion “lowers the tax rate and doesn’t reduce services to the town or school,” she pointed out.

Noting that the second round referendum only failed by 77 votes, she did not think the council received a mandate for making draconian cuts for the third round request.

“It’s a compromise,” she added. “I think a lot of people want a flat budget.”

Several other council members weighed in, some mentioning hundreds of e-mails and calls they received in recent days from taxpayers explaining why they voted Yes or No on previous referendums.

On the assertion from Councilman Dan Amaral that there must be more room to cut from the town budget, First Selectman Pat Llodra referenced the fact that the cumulative increase to the selectmen’s budget has totaled just 1.1 percent over the past five years, while during her administration she has already reduced town staffing by five percent.

“Everybody uses roads, bridges, parks, police, and fire services,” Mrs Llodra said.

Dueling Amendments

At that point an amendment to the main motion was made by Councilman Robert Merola to further reduce the town and school requests by $25,000 each, but after some discussion the amendment failed, 10-2. Mr Amaral then motioned to reduce the town side request by $200,000 along with the existing reduction of $200,000 to the fund balance payment.

That amendment failed 11-1.

Councilman Dan Wiedemann then motioned to amend the existing proposal by reducing the town side request by $75,000, saying some feedback expressed resentment that the previous budget did not reflect any cuts to the town.

Mrs Llodra responded, saying “municipal services are feeling pain,” and defending her request having “inflicted pain on ourselves” to bring forward a request “as close to zero as we can.”

“Is it about image or is it about substance?” Mrs Llodra asked. “I feel like we are being punished for our good work keeping close to zero. If the Board of Selectmen budget is overresourced, then make the reduction, not because someone said ‘shame on you for not cutting the town.’”

Subsequently, the latest amendment failed, 9-3. Mr Wiedemann then countered with another request to reduce the fund balance contribution from $200,000 to $275,000 to bring the new budget request below a one percent increase.

That amendment failed, 8-4.

Paul Lundquist then asked to reduce the fund balance by $200,000 and return $200,000 to the school budget, which failed, 11-1. The main motion then went on to pass unanimously, with $106,406,523 in expenses, and a request for $106,606,523 — reflecting the $200,000 difference for the fund balance infusion.

Because of the town charter stipulation that a third budget after two failures must go to a town meeting, Mrs Llodra said the selectmen would meet on May 21 to set a date for that town meeting, anticipating her board would support changing the call of that meeting to send the third proposal to a referendum.

Reporter Kendra Bobowick contributed to this story.