Council, Split 4-3, Sends .94 Percent Budget Increase to Referendum

This article was posted by Jayme Kunze. It was reported and written by Chris Dehnel.

Amid the arguing, the message from the council was clear on Tuesday.

Give the voters a budget number. 

And now they have just that - and it's the same number submitted by Town Manager Steven Werbner. 

The council in a 4-3 vote, endorsed a bottom line of $51,844,725 for the 2013-14 fiscal year. 

That's an increase of $482,491, or .94 percent. 

It carries a .67 percent increase or .2 mills, which would put it at 30.19 mills. 

Here is a breakdown of the voting on a motion to approve the budget as submitted by Werbner: 

• Democrat Jan Rubino - no.

• Democrat Josh Freeman - no. 

• Democrat Richard Field - no. 

• Republican Benjamin Stanford - yes. 

• Republican Sam Belsito - yes. 

• Republican chairman Jack Scavone- yes.

• Republican Mark Gill - yes.  
 
The referendum is scheduled for May 7 from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hicks Municipal Center gymnasium and the Senior Center. 

Rubino said the support is there for adding money and, "I feel like I am at a funeral." She wanted to add another percentage point to the bottom line.

Field added, "My biggest problem is not letting the town decide what services are appropriate."

Gill said the ambiguity over state funding gives the council no room to breathe. Freeman countered that the public needs a number, and he proposed giving residents "a number to vote on," that includes modest increases in the low six-figures for major departments to take care of "priorities."

Gill said the uncertainty of state funding forces the council's hands to keep any increase to a minimum. 

Belsito said his correspondence indicates townspeople cannot "afford the small increase we are about to present." Freeman disputed that. 

Highlights of the public session included: 

• "Cuts to the schools might not be big, but they have a big impact." 

• There is public support for adding money to the budget. A resident followed the comments up by asking for a summary of the e-mail comments. Council members said they were both for adding to the bottom line and keeping the proposal at a low increase - or even zero. 

• One resident cautioned the council not to take any "windfall" savings, such as health care savings and apply it to operational expenses.  

• Several residents asked the council to explain what is "sustainable."

Council Chairman Jack Scavone proposed that after the 2013-14 budget is decided on, a blue ribbon committee should be formed to analyze the budget long-term and "prioritize."

The budget breaks down as follows: 

- General government  $10,907,859.

- Education $36,059,250.

- Debt service $4,735,625.

- Capital $141,991.