More Questions For The Finance Board

(The following letter to The Board of Finance has been received for publication.)

Dear Members of the Board of Finance:

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my questions at your last meeting. In an attempt to process the answers you provided, I realized that I have more questions for your board for me to fully understand Newtown’s Capital Improvement Plan.

You stated, “All of the Moody’s reports articulate the reasons for our financial well-being, so one could infer that lack of those practices would contribute to the town’s instability.” Mr Kortze indicated that “at least one report articulated a declining growth in the town.” It is still unclear to me whether you did indeed receive a warning from Moody’s that we will be receiving a negative outlook and a downgrade if the town exceeded the ten percent self-imposed debt ceiling.

You stated, “Moody’s is going to make a business decision from the enterprise that we run versus how much money we borrow; they are always going to look at total indebtedness as a function of our ability to pay.” What are you doing to ensure that we will make progress in “our ability to pay”?

I understand that “Newtown is not Ridgefield or Fairfield.” While we do not have I-95 or Route 1, we do have I-84 and Route 25/Route 6 for future planning. Why do we need to “saddle on the backs of the homeowners in the form of taxes”?

You stated, “Newtown has made a decision to remain a bedroom community.” What is the definition of a “bedroom community”? When was this decision made and who made this decision? What planning strategies have you instituted to ensure that Newtown remains a “bedroom community”? By remaining a “bedroom community,” does it affect our “total indebtedness” and “our ability to pay,” which seem to be important factors for Moody’s?

You stated, “the bond rating affects all potential projects as a whole” and that “there are many interests that compete and must be addressed” and that “the taxpayers always [have] the final say.” You mentioned the need to address seniors, open space, ball fields, recreation, Dickinson Park, fire department, and Fairfield Hills. In 2001, the voters approved a “$21.8 million bonding package for the purchase of Fairfield Hills and associated projects, including demolition, renovation, environmental remediation, construction of playing fields, and general site and infrastructure improvements.” (Newtown Bee article).

In 2003, the voters did not approve the Fairfield Master Plan and the Fairfield Hills Authority was created. While neither the voters or the Board of Finance have the authority over Fairfield Hills, would it be prudent for you, as our financial advisory group, to advise that the selectman investigate using some funds from the remaining $14–$16 million not yet bonded for Fairfield Hills to fund the Recreation/ Senior Center and other capital projects on Fairfield Hills? Would this help to reduce the challenge of funding the competing needs?

Po Murray

38 Charter Ridge Drive, Sandy Hook                       October 10, 2006