School District Increase $679,000—

Finance Board Recommends Budget

With 2.7 Percent Tax Hike

By John Voket

In a unanimous vote Monday evening, Newtown’s Board of Finance passed a 2010–11 municipal budget proposal that, after a revenue adjustment by the finance authority, will represent a 2.74 percent tax increase. The proposal now goes to the Legislative Council for further deliberation before final recommendations will go before taxpayers in a late April referendum.

The finance board’s $104,453,615 budget proposal came after a motion from member Martin Gersten to cut the Board of Education’s requested 2010-11 increase by $2.5 million, which still provides the local school district a $679,806 increase over its current operating budget.

In the final few minutes of deliberations on Mr Gersten’s motion, it was established that at least $1.5 million of the reduction to the school’s proposed increase would come from what finance board member Joseph Kearney called “commodities,” or aspects of the budget that if reduced, would have no direct impact on curriculum or jobs.

Those “commodities” included approximately $600,000 to $700,000 in anticipated savings over the amount the district budgeted for health insurance costs; almost a quarter million dollars in utility and fuel savings; $400,000 over what the district budgeted for 2010 excess cost grants; and about $116,000 representing a reduction in an unemployment compensation line item.

Mr Gersten’s motion was met with a countering amendment by Vice Chairman James Gaston who requested amending any reductions to zero, effectively passing the final selectmen’s and school’s requests to the council untouched. But the amendment failed to receive a second, so it died.

Mr Kearney then requested an amendment to reduce the school board’s requested increase by $2.3 million, and that motion, which was seconded by Mr Gaston, failed 4-2.

Mr Gaston debated the proposed district reduction, asking Mr Gersten for his logic behind the $2.5 million motion.

“There has to be a basis — we’re talking about [reducing] 20 teachers,” Mr Gaston said, referring to earlier discussions that indicated the only place left for the district to cut anticipated overhead costs is by reducing its workforce.

Mr Gersten responded: “There’s no way this town is going to pass an eight percent increase.”

Mr Kearney concurred.

“This money comes from the taxpayers, and we need to make sure they accept this budget,” Mr Kearney said.

Declining Enrollment

Earlier in the deliberations, finance member Mike Portnoy expressed frustration that “enrollment is down, but we’re looking at a $2.2 million increase in salaries and benefits — I don’t understand it.”

Mr Portnoy went on to say that by his calculations, enrollment would be down so far by September of 2012, that “you can fit three grades into the Reed School, leaving a K through 3 elementary system, and close any of the four elementary school [facilities]. We’ve been imploring you to look at [declining enrollment] for a number of years, but now we have to plan for it, and plan quickly.”

Following discussions with First Selectman Pat Llodra, which took up about the first hour of the meeting, Mr Gersten moved to reduce the town-side budget request by an additional $250,000. But that was after Mrs Llodra and Finance Director Robert Tait had already produced an additional $244,163 in cuts.

Prior to the vote, Mrs Llodra expressed empathy for the taxpayers who were still coping with their own financial issues, plus the burden of reduced revenues to the town that would have to offset by tax increases to balance the overall budget.

“It’s important to send a budget to taxpayers to pass on the first try,” the first selectman said.

But Mr Kearney noted that following a budget amendment to account for dwindling revenues this year, Mr Gersten’s motion would reduce the town-side request for next year to $807,000 below the current operating budget. Subsequently the motion to reduce the town-side request failed 4-2.

Prior to the final vote, finance Chair John Kortze said from a local perspective, “This is the worst year I’ve ever seen.” He noted that the first selectman has “already swallowed” an $800,000 reduction through the 2009 budget amendment, and said the school district could have addressed its overhead costs for personnel with “more haste, and less pain,” if district officials had heeded repeated “imploring” by the finance board to address declining enrollment.

“We just can’t do business the same this year,” Mr Kortze said. “This is the year to do the best we can and hope for a better next year ... although I don’t think it’s going to be.”

According to Mr Tait, the breakdown between the individual sides of the budget is as follows:

The town-side’s adopted 2009 budget of $37,401,766 was amended to account for reduced actual revenues in January to $36,595,787. The approved finance board recommendation for 2010 for the town-side stands at $37,458,881, representing a $57,115 or a 0.15 percent increase from the adopted budget, and a $863,094 or a 2.36 percent increase from the amended budget.

The school district recently reported that expected revenues will remain as projected, so a budget amendment would not be required. Its 2009 final approved budget was $66,314,928. The school-side recommendation by the finance board stands at $66,994,734, a $679,806 or 1.03 percent increase.

The finance director said the projected tax increase represents an overall proposed budget increase of $1,542,900, which incorporates a $1 million reduction in the use of the town’s fund balance, and a $362,205 reduction in revenues — primarily from shortfalls in projected state grants.

As the finance board’s final recommendation registered with school supporters who gathered with administration and school board officials, the only vocal reaction came from school board Chair Lillian Bittman, who turned to Superintendent Janet Robinson following the vote and said, “I think the PTAs are going to crucify John Kortze.”