What We Can Do

About The Budget

To the Editor:

I have followed closely, the series of articles in The Bee since the beginning of the year on the 2003–04 Newtown budget. I have culled from these articles statements, or have paraphrased remarks attributable to proponents of this spending plan as they attempt to justify the ten percent increase in spending and separate the budget from the impact of property revaluation, that right off the bat increases the annual tax bill for many by from ten to 30 percent. I offer this recap, along with my own, seemingly common sense thoughts on the matter, in spite of the “What else does the public think that we can do?” attitude of some in town governance or on the school board.

School officials dismiss the idea of holding off on any new hiring, for fear it could lead to larger class size.

This suggests intransigence on the part of the Board of Education to really participate in a budgetary give and take. In these lean times, allowing class sizes to drift upward toward the contractual bounds of 30 students would reduce costs significantly, demonstrate willingness to compromise, and enhance goodwill in the community. Simply delay hiring of a significant portion of the requested positions until better times .

Certain fixed cost increases in salary and benefits are unavoidable due to negotiated contracts.

Seems to me that we should be paying better attention to prevailing and near-term economic forecasts when negotiating teacher contracts. Wasn’t the economy tanking in 2001 when the present contract was negotiated? Wouldn’t more of an effort be made to constrain wage increases and increase the percentage that employees contribute for their health benefits to be comparable with the private sector?

 People move to Newtown due to the excellent schools.

 If this is supposed to be synonymous with an outstanding “Quality of Life,” forget it, because you do not have a clue. People come here for a variety of other reasons. How about the rural, small town atmosphere (fast disappearing, thanks to uncontrolled overdevelopment), the terrific Main Street, Edmond Town Hall, Flagpole, Ram Pasture, Cyrenius Booth Library, and occasional open meadow with the fantastic view to name but a few.

We must maintain our property value by spending lots of money.

Longtime residents of town, those who will absorb the greatest percentage increase in taxes due to revaluation and the proposed budget, do not, it seems to me, have a vested interest in maintaining high property values.

Seed money for the skateboard park was reduced from $35,000 to $25,000 in the Selectman’s budget.

Yank the remaining $25,000 allocated in the budget for this frivolous expenditure.

In 2001 homeowners bore 77.8 percent of the total tax burden; 2002, 83.7 percent; and in 2003, 90 percent.

How effective has the office of the Director of Economic Development been in fulfilling its charter in attracting light commercial enterprises to town to shoulder more of the tax burden? Perhaps the efficacy of this position needs to be reassessed in light of the apparent reversal and shift in who’s paying for these budgets.

The budget cuts made by the Board of Finance are a good first step and must be approved by the Legislative Council. In addition the council will, in my view, be shirking responsibility if they fail to implement further deep reductions in spending to arrive at a budget in tune with the current economic environment.

Dave Ruscoe

3 Steck Drive, Newtown                                              March 25, 2003