Contingent Upon State Grant—

School Bd To Return Energy Funds To Town

By John Voket

The Newtown Board of Education Tuesday voted to return $284,000 to the town, provided the school district gets that money from Hartford. The move would result in a one-tenth of one mill reduction to the proposed 2006-2007 budget, provided the State Legislature delivers the funds that were approved by the Appropriations Committee to help offset rising school energy costs statewide.

News of the possible windfall first came last week during the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee meeting when First Selectman Herb Rosenthal presented an advisory from the Connecticut Council of Municipalities (CCM), an organization he currently serves as president.

Mr Rosenthal learned that the legislature’s Appropriations Committee endorsed a sweeping aid package that, if approved by the full legislature, could provide as much as $339,000 in energy assistance. Those funds, if endorsed, would go directly to the Board of Education and would not be restricted for energy use.

Since a $300,000 adjustment to the school board’s budget for anticipated energy cost increases was already factored into next year’s proposal, any further allocations including the state energy assistance would be classified as “unanticipated revenue” by the school board. Last Wednesday, the Legislative Council approved a new budget package with a request that the school board give any state energy assistance back.

Since that giveback was approved by the school board, the town can increase the revenue side of the municipal budget, resulting in an additional one-tenth of one mill decrease to the rate that taxpayers will consider at an April 25 budget referendum. Town Finance Director Benjamin Spragg is legally authorized to adjust the revenue side of the town budget now that the school board has officially endorsed the grant allocation.

According to Legislative Council Chairman Will Rodgers, by agreeing to grant the $284,000 back to the town only if it is delivered from Hartford, the Board of Education’s budget revenue line will remain unchanged. And if the grant is not forthcoming from Hartford, it will become incumbent on the town to reallocate money from the general surplus and increase revenue to meet the $284,000 adjustment.

“It’s important to recognize that the Board of Education chose to cooperate with our request,” Mr Rodgers said. “They deserve credit. Now we should all hope that the legislature delivers the energy assistance.”

During the public comments segment of the school board meeting, council members Patricia Llodra and Keith Jacobs both spoke “as private citizens” on the proposal. The two were, however, diametrically opposed in their views.

While Ms Llodra encouraged the Board of Education to agree to the grant giveback, Mr Jacobs said he was not in favor of returning the funds to reduce the municipal tax burden.

“There are so many places in the [school] budget that money can be used,” Mr Jacobs said. “Not just for programs, but for things like maintenance.”

During deliberations on the matter at this week’s school board meeting, each member weighed in on the matter. School board Chair Elaine McClure said she consulted the CCM website and confirmed that while the energy assistance proposal had made it through appropriations, she cautioned that it was not yet endorsed by the full legislature.

“I know the governor is not in favor of it,” Ms McClure added. In reading from a letter submitted to her and the school board by Mr Rodgers following the council’s budget endorsement, she noted that by agreeing to return the energy funds to the town, her board would not only favorably influence a mill rate reduction, but also “heightens the prospect of the budget passing.”

Nearly half an hour of discussion ensued before the matter was tabled for later in the evening. Early in that discussion, school board member Andrew Buzzi asked school Finance Director Ron Bienkowski if there were any other places where the town could look for funds to affect a one-tenth of a mill reduction.

Reading from the town’s 2005 municipal audit, Mr Bienkowski pointed out a surplus that was realized in last year’s budget resulting from higher than anticipated tax collections, permit fees, and other sources. When asked, Mr Bienkowski told the board that surplus amounted to nearly $800,000.

Mr Buzzi then argued that by resolving to return proposed energy relief, the board was, in effect, promising to give back money “that doesn’t exist.”

“If [the state grant] doesn’t happen, we have revenues in town to look for to make up the shortfall,” Mr Buzzi said.

School board member Thomas Gissen asked if last year’s $800,000 municipal surplus was an anomaly, and Mr Bienkowski answered, “There has never not been a surplus.”

Fellow board member Paul Mangiafico added that he had no problem supporting the return of school funds resulting from an unanticipated windfall or because of better management of the school system.

“However, I get leery of promising things based on what we expect to get from our state capital,” Mr Mangiafico said, adding he was not aware the (town) surplus was so high. “If that is true, I don’t see why the town needs any promises for anything.”

David Nanavaty pointed out that this was the first time the legislature had proposed to give energy assistance directly back to the school district.

“This is money going directly back to the school system, not before it goes through the town where they can have their hands in it,” Mr Nanavaty said. “If this money was going directly back to the town, there would be no request to us to help decrease the mill rate by one-tenth of one percent.”

Mr Nanavaty added that he was “troubled by the quid pro quo attitude” town officials were displaying.

“They have no qualms about taking money away from our children — nonvoting members of our town,” he said. “I’m troubled that the town fathers are going after students like this, seeking recompense from another board like this.”

When the matter was picked up again later in the evening, school board Vice Chair Lisa Schwartz suggested that by agreeing to return the energy assistance, if delivered, the school board would be acting in the spirit of cooperation.

“We’re buying some goodwill along with making a contribution,” Ms Schwartz said, suggesting that such a good faith gesture today might help in the event the school system is seeking financial assistance in addressing a potential issue in the future. “If something goes wrong down the road, if we have a crisis and the money isn’t there.”

After hearing a proposed motion to return the energy assistance that was tendered by Mr Buzzi, Ms McClure temporarily recused herself as chairman, passing the gavel to Ms Schwartz before proposing an amendment to the motion adding language that would reflect the grant would not represent a “precedent,” on the part of her board.

This motion was met with opposition by Mr Mangiafico.

“I think it does set a precedent,” he said. “And based on information from our business manager on the $700,000 to $800,000 the town took, it seems the mill rate the town has been setting is a little on the high side.”

Mr Mangiafico who cast the only dissenting vote on the subsequent motion, also took exception to the suggesting his board would attempt to use the funds to “buy goodwill from another elected body.”

In a letter drafted after the meeting and circulated to town officials, Ms McClure wrote that the school board moved to grant up to $284,000 from the proposed energy assistance grant.

The grant would only be delivered by her board under the conditions that the final approved school budget for the next fiscal year is not less than $60,996,154; the funds are forthcoming from the General Assembly; the grant would be considered only in light of this year’s unique circumstances “present in the General Assembly”; and that the grant would not be forthcoming to the town if it was not delivered, or prohibited by law and/or terms of the grant.