Budget Proposal Fails; Council Calls A Budget Summit

By Kendra Bobowick &    John Voket

Newtown voters rejected a proposed $104.5 million spending plan 1,899 to 1,848 — a margin of 51 votes — April 27. The referendum defeat became clear moments after the polls closed at Newtown Middle School Tuesday evening, as Moderator Cindy Scheibel announced the official machine tally to a room of somber faces, including registrars, Board of Education members, Legislative Council Chair Jeff Capeci, and First Selectman Pat Llodra.

Besides voters who turned out to cast votes at the middle school Tuesday, 52 filed absentee ballots in advance of the referendum. A total of 3,747 taxpayers — or 21 percent of those eligible — voted on the spending plan that would have imposed a 24.13 mill tax rate.

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

The failed spending proposal to fund school and municipal operations for the coming year now falls back to the Legislative Council for adjustments, and Mr Capeci called a special meeting Thursday, April 29, which will be held at 7 pm in the Newtown High School lecture hall. That meeting was scheduled after The Bee’s print edition went to press, but a full report will be filed Friday at newtownbee.com.

Mr Capeci said he expected the Boards of Education, Finance, and Selectmen to attend Thursday evening’s session to offer input toward the council’s subsequent deliberation, and that he was hopeful a new budget recommendation would be forthcoming.

The council has until May 4 to finalize a second budget proposal to recommend to voters in a second referendum, which would presumably be held Tuesday, May 11.

Mrs Llodra said after the polls closed that she was saddened by the low turnout, adding that the opportunity for taxpayers to rule on their own town’s budget is “not just a right, but a responsibility.”

“The big message I have for all of us eligible to vote, is we all have the responsibility to guide this town. And the way we guide the town is at the ballot box,” Mrs Llodra said. “It is unfair to put that burden of that decision on two out of every ten people. Those two out of ten should not have the responsibility of deciding the fate of the community; we all share in that.”

The first selectman said that in the course of her daily duties around town, she had been approached predominantly by voters who said they were voting No because the proposed taxation rate was simply too high. Mrs Llodra said that sentiment was also reflected by a number of taxpayers who dropped in to her office in recent weeks.

“The population who seeks me out, oftentimes longtime residents, are concerned about their taxes and are asking us to keep them as low as possible,” she said. Mrs Llodra said that she has been approached by residents who believe the budget proposal cuts too deeply into the requested budget amounts, and that those individuals are voting No to send a message to increase spending and the resulting taxation.

But the first selectman said that in her long history of community and political service, she has never seen an instance where a No vote on a budget can be construed to mean that the voters want more taxation.

“It is unlikely that will be the consequence of the loss,” she said. “The next challenge is to try to unravel and interpret what this defeat means, and what is the right moderate action that the council can take to put it back out to the voters in hopes of winning their support.”

Mr Capeci said the budget failure was important, but he empathized with taxpayers who cast No votes out of financial necessity.

“It’s a difficult time, and a three percent tax hike is a large number to swallow in these economic times,” Mr Capeci said.

School board Vice Chair Katherine Fetchick said she thought holding a summit among all the lead elected boards was “a great time for everybody to get together to voice where they are right now.” She was looking forward to hearing if the opinions of other town leaders had changed on any matters since their respective handling of individual aspects of the spending plan.

Finance board Chair John Kortze spoke to The Bee following the vote, expressing concern as he has in the past, for how a No vote would be taken into consideration by municipal bond rating agencies.

“We’ve been told by both bond rating agencies that they prefer to see budgets pass on the first try,” Mr Kortze said. “It indicates a town’s willingness to support a certain level of spending.”

The finance chairman said while rating agencies look at “a host of things that are all intertwined,” he was also concerned about towns that may have a tendency to consistently dip into reserves to offset larger tax increases.

“Dipping into their general funds, drawing down below a preferred balance, and adding a history of failed budgets has contributed to other neighboring towns receiving bond rating downgrades,” he said.

Mr Kortze added that the contingent who might suggest that the “protest voters” who cast No votes in hopes of seeing the budget increased should consider what happened in 2007. He said in that year, the first budget failed by about 70 votes.

After the council made a token cut to the second recommendation in an attempt to interpret the close margin by which the first referendum failed, the second attempt failed by several hundred votes. He also theorized that this year’s turnout was so low because many people were complacent.

Mr Kortze also pointed out that in tracking voter turnout and the way each referendum split, it is evident that each year an average of 2,000–2,400 No votes were cast.

“This year we only got around 1,900,” he said. “Where were the rest of the No voters who normally turn out no matter what?”

The close of the polls at 8 pm Tuesday also corresponded with the close of a Newtown Bee Internet survey, which sought to identify how participants were planning to vote, and what motivated their decision (see separate report in this edition). The complete results of that poll can be viewed, along with comments registered by 81 respondents, by clicking on newtownbee.com.