.
Feedback

"Watershed Moment" As New London Budget Passes

Councilors override Mayor Daryl Finizio's veto, but restore funding for funding cut from administrative positions in decision on 2013 fiscal year budget

The City Council swiftly approved a compromise municipal budget tonight, overriding a but restoring several administrative positions cut on the .

The budget as approved appropriates $42,323,256 for the municipal budget and $40,626,405 for the . The mill rate increases by 1.91 from 25.31 to 27.22, a 7.53 percent increase.

Funding for a total of 19 municipal positions is being cut, with those employees retiring or losing their jobs. These include nine positions in the , six positions in the , and two information technology positions. The , with those duties assumed by Chief Administrative Officer Jane Glover.

The council unanimously voted to overturn a veto of the municipal budget by Mayor Daryl Finizio in order to both set the tax rate and make appropriations for the 2013 fiscal year, which begins on July 1. The council also voted 5-2 to make a pair of funds transfers which will preserve the five administrative positions which were defunded.

Let Patch save you time. Get great local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone every day with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.

“I think it’s a watershed moment for the council and the city,” said Council President Michael Passero.

“I am pleased the council and the administration could reach an amicable resolution to move forward,” said Finizio.

Prior budget decisions

On May 29, the council approved a $42,466,252 municipal budget and $40,626,405 budget for the schools. The municipal budget included several line item transfers to increase the budgets of the and to avoid the elimination of 51 positions—including —anticipated in those departments. The transfer took away funding for the salaries of the deputy police chief, mayor’s office administrator, assistant city clerk, director of the Office of Development and Planning, and risk manager.

The budget passed 5-2 on its , 4-3 on its , and 6-1 on its final reading.

Finizio vetoed the municipal budget on June 13, saying it over-estimated revenues by $265,000, tried to remove funds from positions it does not have the authority to defund, eliminated funds for “critical” administrative positions, and “dramatically” adjustd the budget to avoid public safety layoffs. Along with the veto, Finizio announced that the city has reached tentative agreements with the fire and police unions that will avoid layoffs without the need to eliminate funding for other positions.

Funds transfers

Under the first funds transfer approved by the council, $342,622 was taken from the fire budget. A total of $199,626 was used to restore funding cut from other positions, while the remaining $142,996 was used to reduce the expenditures.

This resolution specifically replenished $51,626 for the mayor’s office, $94,000 for the , and $54,000 for the assistant city clerk.

The council voted 4-2 in favor of the transfer, with Council President Wade Hyslop and Councilors Donald Macrino, Anthony Nolan, and Adam Sprecace in favor. Councilors Marie Friess-McSparran and John Maynard were opposed. Passero, a firefighter, recused himself from the vote.

The second funds transfer took $429,065 from intergovernmental revenues and $100 from miscellaneous revenue and transferred $276,500 to charges for services, $8,819 to fines and penalties, and $850 to taxes ad valorem. The remaining $142,996 went toward reducing expenditures.

The council voted 5-2 in favor of the resolution, with Hyslop, Macrino, Nolan, Passero, and Sprecace in favor and Friess-McSparran and Maynard opposed.

Council reactions

Passero said he was “absolutely relieved” to complete the budget.

“It was depressing to think we were going to have to start from scratch again,” he said.

Passero said the council has had to make several cuts in order to make up for lost revenue, but said the council and administration would commit to increasing revenues and the grand list. He said he hopes the groundbreaking on the development, scheduled for this year at Fort Trumbull, will prove an economic boost to the city.

Passero also urged residents to take a close look at the budget. He said it represents a compromise between the first proposed by Finizio as necessary to preserve the level of city services and the interests of residents who have said they believe taxes are already too high. He said several surrounding communities have also encountered increased taxes in this fiscal year.

“It doesn’t get any better than this for the city,” he said.

Sprecace said he thinks the mill rate increase is fair given the loss of expected revenue.

“I’m pleased to see we ended up at a position we expected to end up at,” he said.

Friess-McSparran said she was glad to arrive at an end point in the budget process. However, she said she thought the taxpayers would have appreciated a reduction in taxes through elimination of funds for the administrative positions. She said she expects the council will have to reconsider that issue if the budget is challenged by referendum.

“I just think that instead of putting the positions in, we should have lowered the budget by that amount,” she said.

 

Original breaking news:

The City Council has approved an approximately $83 million budget which restores administrative positions cut at the budget's third reading.

The council voted unanimously to override Mayor Daryl Finizio's veto of the budget, but also voted 5-2 in two separate votes to transfer funds from other accounts to restore salaries that had been eliminated for several administrative positions.

A full story will be posted tonight.

Receive updates to this story and other breaking news in your inbox or smartphone by signing up for our newsletter here

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from New London Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Sue P. May 20, 2013 at 11:03 am
Very good comparison. I also wanted to add that the Ct. College students that believe what FinizioRead More has to say remind me of The Children of the Corn. After speaking with a friend we realized that Mayor Finizio is like a college student. I just wish he knew that real life does not work this way. New London has already played this game with the Giordano lady years ago. Remember her she was from Ct. College and also was going to make New London a hip city. We got homeless people and brownfields. So much for that idea. Been their done that. How about a new idea for once. Please don't think about shutting down State St. that too was a bad idea. Just ask Mr. Hyslop and Ms. Glover how their ideas worked out. It doesn't matter anyways it's all about the votes and getting your Children of the Corn on the Council. I mean come on drivers licenses for illigals who ever thought that one up.
J. Scagnetti May 20, 2013 at 10:07 am
I'd say more like G.I. Joe vs cobra, oh no wait, He man vs skeletor or maybe even the thundercats vsRead More mumra! Lol
Carol Haley May 19, 2013 at 07:14 pm
Here's the latest Spencer from the AP, if we can believe them: Traffic in southwest ConnecticutRead More could be a mess for as much as a week until service is restored to the commuter rail line affected by a derailment that injured scores of passengers, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy warned Sunday.
Spencer May 19, 2013 at 07:10 pm
Another blow to not only NL's but the entire Southern CT's economy! Guess who will be picking upRead More the tab?
Carol Haley May 19, 2013 at 05:26 pm
I read that Malloy is hoping Monday but there are problems with the tracks and that has to beRead More repaired. Taking a guestimate, if it isn't Monday, maybe the end of the week.
John Martin May 19, 2013 at 02:42 pm
Of course, you are assuming that the government fund managers would be responsible. So far, this hasRead More been far from the case. The Federal government has plundered Social Security for decades, the teacher and state employee funds have been systematically looted. Of course they want to open this up to anyone with dollars in their pockets. I am not opposed to a program like this - in fact, economies of scale using voluntary contributions in a well-managed plan could be quite beneficial. If the government is going to be allowed to administer the program, there needs to be stringent safeguards, the funds must be untouchable, and there should be swift and significant consequences for mismanagement. Oh, but wait - this is Connecticut. Of course people will find their dollars funding the 'progressive' agenda with no regard for the state's fiduciary, legal, and moral obligation to the contributors.
Kathleen Mitchell May 19, 2013 at 10:45 am
If I read this correctly and, if not, I'm sure someone will correct me, the highlights of this billRead More are (1) It's designed for workers "who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employer" (2) "workers can take their investment with them as they move from job to job." (3) "whatever administrative costs are associated with the plan are charged to the participants themselves, not Connecticut taxpayers." I haven't read the bill yet but I don't see anything in this article by Richard Waselik regarding an employer contribution or match so what is the problem?
Sue P. May 19, 2013 at 10:20 am
Richard, Are you the same Richard that sent a letter to the city council when you became concernedRead More that people that did not work for the city long enough were contributing to the pension plan? I think I have a copy of it somewhere. I think you were concerned that people were getting vested and they were not suppose to be yet.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 07:44 am
Pretty funny Spencer. But you don't want a museum there. You need something that generates taxes.Read More Museums are mostly non-profit thereby not generating any taxes. I know you were being funny. I was disgusted to read the developer couldn't show financial backing.
Kathleen Mitchell May 17, 2013 at 05:47 pm
Who would haveever thought of Wasp Spray? When you get the case of spray, be sure and drop a can offRead More at my house;>)
Jeff Brown May 17, 2013 at 03:46 pm
Good article, gonna have to pick up a case of wasp spray!
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Barbara, I agree with you. But it is probably a lot easier to get an illegal social security numberRead More than we would know. There are two ways of looking at this issue, but my resentment is that I have to pay for them.
Barbara Crocker May 17, 2013 at 07:52 am
But for state aid they would have to have a Social Security number. Bending and breaking laws isRead More how they got here in the first place. The fact that elected officials condone and encourage these laws to be broken is the biggest problem that I have with this whole debacle. "Undocumented residents" place a burden on all of us, and take jobs that could be worked by legal residents. Employers hire illegals (yes I prefer calling them what they are, to hell with being politically correct) because it saves them money, not because "no one else would work these jobs". This is a slap in the face to all of our ancestors who came to this country and followed the rules to become citizens.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 06:51 am
The way things have been going in the eastern part of the United States, as long as the illegals areRead More not breaking the law criminally (motor vehicle is different), they are not arrested for being illegal. Its the illegal immigrants who break the law, such as the large drug bust recently in the papers. As long as they are minding their own business, they get a pass. The only problem I have with illegals is their rush to get on state aid, food stamps, etc. I don't think we should have to support those that choose to live in this country illegally. Becoming a US citizen is not cheap. It is expensive, but it is something that they must work for.
Spencer May 16, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Perhaps because people who vote continue to vote the same way they have for years--and expect to getRead More different results when they do so?