At GOP Press Conference—

Republican Council, School, Finance Leaders

Advocate For Budget Passage

By John Voket

Recognizing there are residents who will turn out May 18 for the town’s second try at passing a 2010-2011 budget and vote No because they want a zero tax increase, while others are rejecting the proposal in a so-called “game of chicken” hoping to force more restorations to school spending, local Republican leaders called a press conference this week to appeal to taxpayers who fall somewhere in between.

(A full audio recording of the GOP press conference can be accessed at NewtownBee.com)

Legislative Council Chairman Jeff Capeci, Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob, Board of Education Vice Chair Katherine Fetchick, and Board of Finance Chairman John Kortze held a 90-minute press conference Wednesday. The four elected leaders offered details addressing several of the most controversial budget-related issues, ideas about how the school district can better meet its obligations while holding the line on class sizes with minimal loss of staff, and rebuttal to points of misinformation the panel said they have seen or heard circulating in the community.

First Selectman Pat Llodra could not attend the press conference, but sent along a written statement that was presented by Mr Capeci. In her statement, the first selectman acknowledged that the revised proposal going before voters Tuesday impacts town and school services.

“The proposed budget is barely above current levels, and will clearly challenge our government and education leaders to provide the services our citizens expect and deserve,” Mrs Llodra wrote.

Mr Capeci led off the comments by saying that the budget revision put forth by the council ahead of the second referendum is fair and takes into consideration competing interests in the community during difficult economic times.

“When the April 27 referendum failed, we listened to all of our constituents and deliberated and passed a budget that we believe if understood, will be supported by a majority of voters,” Mr Capeci said.

He then referenced the more than $500,000 in reductions to the municipal side of the proposal, which further lowered potential taxation from three percent to 2.44 percent. The council chair also reminded taxpayers that despite typically applying insurance and other savings to the overall budget to further reduce taxation, the council chose to provide the school district $450,000 in additional commodity savings that was previously available to apply to programs or saving teacher jobs.

Mr Capeci appealed to taxpayers on the basis that the latest proposal gives “something to everyone,” because it creates a midpoint compromise between taxpayers who want further reductions and those who want certain requested funding restored. He added that the proposal accomplishes that while reducing the town’s reliance on tapping a dwindling fund balance, which in turn puts the town in a stronger position in the eyes of bond rating agencies and the investors who compete for those bond investments with lower borrowing rates.

Addressing Misconceptions

When facing criticism from members of the community that the school district faced an unfair or disproportionate amount of reductions versus the town-side, the panel confirmed that the school district would still receive a 1.02 percent increase if voters approve the spending plan May 18 — representing a $679,000 increase over the current year’s budget.

“The reductions made prior to sending the budget [proposal] to the voters represent three percent and 2.7 percent decreases in education and town requests, respectively,” Mr Capeci said.

Ms Jacob addressed the issue of “pay to play” and incorrect assertions that the revenue developed by fees paid by school program participants is available to the town for other uses, including “buying a dump truck.” She referred taxpayers to Page 8 in the school district budget book, where they could see the amount parents are expected to contribute is $84,800, and Page 52 where $720,017 is budgeted for those programs’ expenses.

“Clearly, most of the expenses associated with athletics are being funded by taxes,” Ms Jacob said. “Until revenue exceeds expenses, there is no possible way that parents’ money is being spent anywhere else.”

The group also addressed questions about the risk associated with the town and schools self-insuring, pointing out that the first selectman has already proposed the council pass an ordinance that protect the (participant generated) funds from being used for any other purpose than for insurance reserves.

Regarding the notion that the town is hiding funds for bridge repairs in the capital road plan, Ms Jacob once again pointed to the available documentation that shows that the original line item for bridges was removed from operating expenses when it was shifted to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

‘Slush Fund?’

The Republicans also countered any suggestion of a town-side “slush fund” by reaffirming that any tapping of the contingency account in excess of $200,000 can only be done with approval by the finance board and council in “a very public process meant to provide checks and balances.”

Mr Kortze added that the town has offered to facilitate a similar fund for the school district, but the school district has opted to not maintain such a fund by choice.

“And since they have complete [statutory] control over moving funds into and out of any of their accounts, they have more flexibility in their accounting than the town does,” Mr Kortze said. He added that any education reductions will not be deliberated and enacted until after a budget is passed, and then those actions fall on the school board.

“Any scenarios being floated are suggestions only,” he said, before reviewing a list of options the Republicans are asking the school district to consider before laying off teachers or increasing class size (see spreadsheet at NewtownBee.com).

Those savings would be generated from teachers taking early retirement incentives; assuming no reduction in the state’s excess cost grant for the coming year; utility and fuel savings; and nearly $1 million in overall insurance savings. Additional areas of savings were identified totaling between $619,500 and $826,500 depending on how aggressive the school district might want to be regarding Reed School activity funds, assumptions about enrollment declines, transportation negotiations, and an overall pay to play increase.

Ms Jacob also explained that the ripple effects of taking even a slightly higher allocation from the general fund to reduce taxation, and to restore more funds to the school request would be felt going forward for several years, and could put the town’s recently elevated bond rating at greater risk.

In the end, the panel agreed that a failure of the May 18, and any subsequent, referendum would not result in funding being added back to the school district. Following the meeting, Ms Jacob reiterated comments she made earlier.

“Under no circumstances do I see putting more money back into education — but I am just one vote out of 12 [council members],” she said. “But I’m afraid that any further cuts to the town might anger those taxpayers who do not use education services, but who use town services.”

She also challenged voters to examine the documentation and the facts readily available about every aspect of the proposed plan, and to make the best choice on May 18.

“I believe the town and education budgets are where they need to be,” she said.