Council Trims $295K After Budget Defeat; May 9 Referendum Likely

By John Voket

One resident proposed a flat-line budget constituting nearly $1 million in cuts, one council member was looking for more than $600,000 in reductions, several supported putting the identical proposal forward, and yet another councilman suggested putting $175,000 back into the proposal.

There were better than a dozen options offered for consideration Wednesday night when members of the Legislative Council, taxpayers and other town officials gathered for a redo on the 2006-2007 municipal budget. The first referendum on a proposed $96.3 million budget was defeated by 53 votes Tuesday.

But when all was said and done Wednesday evening, it was decided that the next budget referendum would go forward with a $295,000 cut, constituting a one-tenth of a mill decrease in the proposed tax rate. (A mill represents one dollar for every $1,000 in assessed property.)

A total of 3,483 voters cast 1,715 votes in favor of the spending plan and 1,768 votes against on April 25. That turnout represented roughly a one in five ratio of qualified taxpayers who went to the polls at the Newtown Middle School.

The first budget defeat since 2003 precipitated a quick response by the council, which was pressed to tender an alternative in time for the Board of Selectmen to recommend a second referendum.

According to First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, that second vote would likely be May 9. The Board of Selectmen is scheduled to formalize that date Monday at 5:30 pm when it meets at the Booth Library.

Prior to Wednesday’s deliberations among council members, taxpayers and town officials made a range of pleas. Middle Gate School PTA President Susanne Zimmerman told council members that it was probably a combination of apathy and timing that contributed to the first budget proposal’s failure.

She noted that the vote was held on the second day after a ten-day spring break from school, and that considering similarly structured budgets had passed in recent years, there was little motivation for taxpayers to come out and support the first attempt. Ms Zimmerman then asked that the council resubmit the identical package for reconsideration.

“Let the budget be carried forth again,” she said, pointing out that several neighboring towns had achieved success the second time around on identical budget proposals.

School Superintendent Evan Pitkoff alluded to the fact that he had not worked in Newtown very long, but long enough to have faced a previous budget failure. He noted that the 2003 referendum budget defeat forced numerous significant cuts in school programs and services.

“The last budget failure forced us to eliminate the gifted and talented program, the fourth-grade orchestra program, change a four-tiered bus system to a three-tiered bus system, increased fees for sports and instituted fees for other activities as well as increasing class size,” Dr Pitkoff said, adding that he did not think a 53 vote difference was a mandate.

Robert Morolla said the 16 percent average increase year-to-year justified consideration of a flat budget proposal.

“People on fixed incomes go year-to-year on a zero increase in revenue, so they are managing on a flat budget,” Mr Morolla said. “I would suggest about a $900,000 cut, and have our executive team and our Board of Ed consider managing to a flat year-to-year budget.”

Chris Manfredi said it seemed “like a no-brainer” that the time to support education was now.

“I can’t afford to live any more south of [Newtown] in lower Fairfield County, but there are towns south of us that property values are lower. Why are they lower? Because their schools have bad reputations,” he said.

Mr Manfredi was among audience members to qualify the 53 vote defeat “statistically insignificant,” to justify any budget cuts whatsoever.

Newtown PTA Council President Sarah Beier suggested it was probably a combination of factors that caused the historically low turnout at the polls. She noted, however, that multiplying statistically, if 90 percent of the eligible voters turned out for the budget, it would have failed by only 212 votes.

“The PTA Council respects that you see yourselves in the role of having to make a reduction, we do ask that you keep that [reduction] as small as you can, reflecting the small difference between those who voted Yes and No,” Ms Beier said.

School board member Tom Gisson echoed that the 53-vote difference was “statistically insignificant.”

“When you look at it from the overall registered voter population, it’s less than one-half of one percent,” Mr Gisson said. “I would ask that you pass the budget on with a re-energized sense, so the people could get more seriously involved.”

Following several more minutes of public comment, council vice chair Timothy Holian made a motion to reduce the budget by one-tenth of a mill, relegating a $100,000 cut to be made to the municipal side by the first selectman and Finance Director Benjamin Spragg, and a $195,000 cut to be made by the Board of Education.

Councilman Daniel Amaral said he gauged public sentiment opposing the budget increase based on “only about two letters in The Newtown Bee supporting it.” He also suggested the school board should take the advice of a constituent of his, who is a local school bus driver, and rethink the current number of buses in service.

“You could cut one bus and save $100,000 right there,” he said. “Of course, they control the number of buses and the schedules,” Mr Amaral said, referring to the school administration.

He then suggested that taxpayers would be more likely to support at least a two-tenth of a mill cut, or more.

Council Chair Will Rodgers then made a clarification on a proposed state energy assistance grant to the schools that was the subject of action during the last council meeting. While the school board agreed to refund $284,000 grant if it was forthcoming, Mr Rosenthal said his latest information from Hartford was that grant proposal was probably dead.

“They’re talking about a revenue-sharing grant that would come to the town directly,” Mr Rosenthal said. “Originally we were supposed to get $339,000 that was going directly to the Board of Education, but with [proposed] reductions to a revenue-sharing proposal, we’re still looking to get $284,000.”

Council member Keith Jacobs then suggested amending the motion to reinstate $175,000 that was cut from the school’s budget during earlier finance board deliberations. But on a point of order, Mr Rodgers deflected the suggestion saying that if Mr Holian’s motion to cut the budget failed, the council might entertain a new motion to possibly reinstate money.

After several more minutes of discussion, a close look at possible increased revenue opportunities that yielded few positive options, it was Councilman David Brown who had the final word.

“My seconding the motion should present my position, but I feel I should address the concerns of those regarding the statistical insignificance of [53 No votes],” Mr Brown said. “I would point out that on a budget of $96 million, a cut of $295,000 is statistically insignificant.”

The council then cast its vote to recommend a new budget proposal to the voters incorporating a $295,000 cut. Mr Jacobs and council member Joseph Borst tendered the only two dissenting votes on the motion.