My comments are in Blue – Theresa McGrath

Hartford Courant

After $1.6 Million Cut, Council Adopts Budget

By DANIEL P. JONES

Courant Staff Writer

June 28, 2007

WEST HARTFORD

The town council Wednesday night cut more than $1.6 million from the spending plan rejected by voters earlier this month and adopted a 2007-08 budget that leaders of the taxpayers' group say they will not oppose.

The revised town budget increases spending by 2.66 percent; the resulting 4.54 percent property tax increase is due solely to the effect of townwide revaluation. (Being facetious of course, according to our Mayor and many of Dan Jones’ articles, we were only increasing taxes by 1.9%, prior to this budget cut. Hmmm.  But, seriously though, why hadn’t our Town Council and BOE not provided the public with a bare bones budget to begin with; knowing that we would have a 5 year phase in property tax bill?)

The council added nearly $1.7 million in revenue to the budget. That revenue will come mostly from town surplus and an anticipated settlement from the state's trash authority, making a total adjustment of nearly $3.3 million from the defeated budget. (This revenue is a similar issue as the anticipated ECS funding our town had included in the previous adopted budget, however had come as a shortfall of over $275,000.  I mentioned to Dan Jones that Town Attorney O’Brien had told me that West Hartford really doesn’t know just how much money we will be receiving from this settlement.  How can we add revenue to this budget without really knowing for sure how much this total will be?  I certainly hope we won’t be shortchanged again.  Dan Jones neglected to add this issue to his article.  Not to mention the fact that by our town adding revenue, they really had not cut the budget by that much.)

The council voted 8-0, with one abstention, to approve a budget that members said preserves classroom programs, leaf collection, outdoor pools and senior centers, among other things. (I hope the public truly remembers these scare tactics for years to come.  One thing our town had left out of their proposed cuts was the miniature golf course and other Capitol improvements ($16 million+) expected to be done in our town during this budget cycle.  Could they not have cut anything from this item of the budget?)

The budget increases user fees at pools, the ice rink and the Elmwood Community Center; eliminates 17 part-time town employees; freezes wages for town department directors, eliminating their bonuses; and freezes salaries for all nonunion town employees. The budget also reduces hours at the two branch libraries on Fridays, but leaves the main library's schedule unchanged. (We don’t really know what the increase in user fees will be, or what part time employees they refer to – they could be forcasted new hires which are not really an elimination at all, and the salary freezes and bonuses could be and in the past have been found to be hidden in other areas of the budget…we will never know if the town will truly own up to their responsibility in this area.)

"It's incredibly lean, responsible and committed to our priorities of education, services and safety," council member Shari Cantor said of the new budget.

Cantor, who did much of the line-by-line work to revise the budget in consultation with other council members over the past two weeks, said revaluation had a more profound effect on property taxes than realistic reductions the council could make in the budget. (They worked off the same budget book we did…how could they have done a line-by-line itemization of this budget?)

Mayor Scott Slifka, who presented the revised budget to the audience before the council voted, said that without revaluation the revised budget would have included no property tax increase. The 4.54 percent property tax increase - which is based on phasing in 25 percent of the effect of revaluation in the first of five years - is due solely to revaluation, he said. (But, we do have a property tax increase that is so high, our town has to phase it in over 5 years).

The budget that voters defeated included a 3.48 percent spending increase. It called for a property tax increase for homeowners of less than 2 percent but when revaluation was factored in the increase was 6.6 percent, because the revaluation shifted part of the tax burden from commercial to residential properties. It was clear from the referendum, Slifka said, that residents thought that number was too high.

The mayor said the board of education contributed a $500,000 reduction from its previously adopted budget. But he said he has been assured by the board that the reduction will be in administrative costs and will not affect classroom programs. (Amazingly and coincidentally the Board of Education had found $500,000 left over from an item in the budget from last year.  It had been a surplus in an account.  Oddly enough, this is what was cut from our Town Council Budget.)

Leaders of the West Hartford Taxpayers Association, a group that had forced a June 12 referendum in which voters resoundingly defeated the council's initial $203.3 million adopted budget, said they were pleased with the revised spending plan.

Theresa McGrath, the group's president, said the association would not seek a second referendum. "We are appreciative that the council has finally heard the taxpayers speak. We're happy with the outcome," she said.

The council's six elected Democrats - Cantor, Chuck Coursey, Maureen McClay, Art Spada, Slifka and Carolyn Thornberry - voted to approve the nearly $201.7 million spending plan.

Republican Barbara Carpenter and Joseph Verrengia, who recently switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, also voted in favor.

Republican Mark Sinatro abstained, saying he did not have a final list of budget reductions before the meeting and couldn't make an informed decision. (I’m not sure I like the way Dan Jones quoted Mr. Sinatro’s statement, but, the most concerning issue I have with this is that Mr. Sinatro had not been given a fair chance to make an informed decision to represent his constituency properly.  I happen to agree with Mr. Sinatro, given that the public has not had open dialogue or proper information to make truly informed decisions about the budget.  We experienced a handful of people who simply wanted the budget increased for the sake of increasing the budget.  This is beyond ignorance not knowing exactly where the money is being spent.  It simply makes no sense what-so-ever.  The WHTA picked through the budget books with a fine tooth comb for both the town and board budgets to truly find answers of where the money was going.  All we were left with to do to inform the public was to show the increases by departments as the town had clearly printed in their budget books.  Through some FOI’s we had found hidden money, which lined the pockets of department supervisors; however, not all our FOI’s were answered.  The Hartford Courant was no help in that arena for us.)


Contact Daniel P. Jones at dpjones@courant.com.