.

City Council Passes Revised Budget, Tax Rate

In a 5-2 vote, councilors approve approximately $41.3 million municipal budget and 5.1 percent tax increase

Voting along the same lines as their original decision on the budget four months ago, the City Council passed a revised municipal budget and tax rate tonight.

Councilors voted 5-2 in favor of a $41,264,459 and a tax rate of 26.6 per $1,000, a 5.1 percent tax increase over the 2012 fiscal year tax rate of 25.31. The vote follows the rejection of the original $42.3 million budget and 7.5 percent tax increase at a Sept. 18 referendum.

Most of the budget reduction comes from anticipated savings through debt refinancing as well as cuts from the New London Police Department and Finance Department. Some smaller reductions and increases are also included in the budget.

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.

Supporters of the budget said they felt the budget reflected the needs of the city as well as challenges such as revenue shortfalls. Opponents of the prior budget have said they are not satisfied with the current budget and will again try to petition the budget to go before a referendum vote.

Support

Councilor Adam Sprecace, who supported the original budget but later advocated overturning it at referendum after saying the Finance Department had not provided sufficient detailed budget information to the public, said he was in favor of passing the revised budget. The vote on the budget was delayed from Sept. 27 after Sprecace said several of these details were missing from the revised budget document.

Sprecace said he had worked with the Finance Department to indicate which information he wanted to have included in the budget. He said the department had provided these details with the exception of employee benefits by individual, but that the Finance Department outlined the benefits expended on each department and he considered this to be sufficient.

“This is the level of detail that I think needs to be included in every fiscal year budget from here on,” he said.

Sprecace also said the budget is about $750,000 less than the 2012 municipal budget, and that he thinks there is sufficient money in the police budget to begin the hiring process to fill six unbudgeted vacancies without impacting the 2013 budget. He said the budget also takes into account reduced revenues from state grants and other sources.

“You can see why a tax increase is necessary, or at least I can,” he said. “I think where we are right now is a place I’m comfortable with.”

Council President Michael Passero said he considered that the council and administration have worked diligently on the budget for several months. He also said the city will be taking a closer look at its fiscal history following a recent council decision to approve operational audits in 10 departments.

“We’re hoping to get a budget in place, and we’re hoping to get down to work policing our budget,” said Passero. “I think it’s going to be tight, and I only hope we’re going to be able to make it to the end of our fiscal year without making additional cuts.”

Councilor President Pro Tempore Wade Hyslop and Councilors Donald Macrino and Anthony Nolan also supported the budget and tax rate.

Opposition

Councilor John Maynard said he thought the council had not worked sufficiently beyond the recommendations made by Finance Director Jeff Smith following the referendum. During Finance Committee discussions, Maynard unsuccessfully recommended cutting several administrative salaries, saying he would prefer such reductions to cutting from the NLPD.

“I feel that the council has let the citizens of New London down,” he said.

Councilor Marie Friess-McSparran expressed concerns over the effects of the cut to the NLPD budget as well as the debt refinancing. She said she thought the budget would be a significant burden to New London taxpayers in part to pay municipal salaries significantly higher than the city’s median income.

“There should be shared sacrifice in this budget,” she said.

During the public comment section, resident Carl Lee also said the council should not cut money from the NLPD budget.

“It takes a good year to train these guys,” he said. “I’m not asking you I’m begging you. Anyone who listens to the scanner knows that our streets aren’t all that safe.”

Budget process

The council’s original municipal budget, approved on June 19, was $42,323,256 with a tax rate of 27.22, a 7.5 percent tax increase. The vote was 5-2 in favor.

An effort to petition the municipal budget and tax rate to put them before a referendum vote was successful, and both were defeated in a Sept. 18 vote. A total of 1,436 voters were against the budget while 1,007 were in favor of it, and the tax rate was defeated in a 1,470 to 963 vote.

After three meetings, the Finance Committee voted 2-1 on Sept. 25 to accept Smith’s budget recommendation. Most of the reduction is a result of $500,000 in savings from debt refinancing, which Smith said would be feasible under current rates. He warned that further cuts would be necessary if smaller savings are realized when refinancing is done in November.

Another $280,000 was taken from the Finance Department due to a decision by Dr. Stephen Adamowski, a special master appointed to the New London Public Schools, to stop a plan to have the department absorb the expenses of the school district’s business office. The proposal also cuts $250,000 from the NLPD, most of which would result from leaving six vacant positions unbudgeted.

The budget makes a number of smaller adjustments resulting in both budget increases and decreases. These include $46,966 cut from personnel costs due to a termination in the mayor’s office, a $160,000 reduction to 60-day collections revenue to correct accounting procedures, and a $73,150 increase to the law department budget to bring it to the level of the department’s average spending in the past five years.

The $160,000 revenue shortfall was filled through the application of $40,000 from a COPS Universal Hiring Grant and $120,000 in employee benefit reductions. Smith recommended that the money be taken from police fringe benefits due to vacancies there, but Sprecace made an amendment to find the benefit reductions in other departments due to the existing cut to the NLPD. The amendment passed 4-2.

The budget and tax rate went before the full council for a vote on Sept. 27, but was delayed to today to allow the Finance Department to assemble a more complete budget document.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Alphonse DeLachance October 10, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Sorry I am in N.O. LA this week on Business, please put something about the meeting results on PATCH.
Sue P. October 10, 2012 at 08:01 PM
I'll either post it here or check your profile and I can write you a note there. I'll keep you updated.
Clark van der Lyke October 10, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Thank you Mr. DeLachance. I am far from always right. However...I will say that in th e 20 years I was City Clerk I would get different opinions from SOA depending on who you talked to. The premise seems fair is some respects. However, remember New London is an odd duck. We for example are not bound by minority party representation and probably the only municipality that can elect all Republicans or all Democrats to the council or board of ed. I do know that in order to vote at a referendum your name must appear on the voter registration list. How else would anyone know who you are? There simply is no listing at the polls of owners of property in New London who live in East Podunk or anywhere else. Interesting.
Sue P. October 11, 2012 at 02:01 AM
Alphonse, Just got back from the lot meeting and Mike Passero Mare Friess-McSparren and Jeff Smith the finance directer where there. They answered a lot of questions that the crowd asked and some of it is very confusing. I happened to bring my neighbor who does accounting. She had the budget all printed out and pointed out problem after problem in the budget. Mike P. kept on bringing up the audit so I said why should the citizens want to pass a budget that is not correct and also we want to see what happens after the audit. Not one mind was changed after this meeting. I am 99% sure that this budget will be petitioned again. Why would anyone vote on a budget when the numbers are all wrong and mixed up? I could go on and on but it doesn't change anything the numbers are not correct on the budget.
Rick Lushay October 11, 2012 at 05:40 PM
I think a referendum is a waste of time. A tax revolt is in order. Set up a legal escrow account and have all taxpayers pay their taxes into that account until the budget issues are resolved. The big issue is that the mayor lies, his staff lie, all but 2-3 city councilors lie or just do not understand the budget process and basic econmics. Something drastic needs to take place. There is no way this mayor or 5 of the councilors will ever get elected again.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »