New budget, but North Stonington still divided

Ongoing disagreements about how to keep taxes low and what to cut have left both sides frustrated

North Stonington — A new budget approved by the Board of Finance on Wednesday night will get support from the town’s first selectman; however, disagreements over the past few months about how to keep taxes low and what should be cut has left both sides frustrated with each other.

An upcoming referendum, which likely can’t be held until after Thanksgiving due to the upcoming presidential election, will be the third attempt to pass a budget.

The new $18.8 million proposal takes some money out of the capital budget, moving $25,000 into town road maintenance and $32,450 into highway department labor. It was proposed to the full Board of Finance by Vice Chairman Charles Steinhart IV, with all three selectmen present in the audience.

Steinhart said the finance board would meet the selectmen halfway on the road maintenance, while keeping the expenses the same and essentially holding the town to no tax increase, when a revaluation is taken into account.

The capital item removed was a $47,450 diesel tractor/mower. The finance board resolved not to take money out of the Center for Emergency Services spending plan apart from $10,000, due to a lower interest rate, that would be part of the funds transferred to the highway department.

Steinhart said his recommendation doesn’t increase the budget, and was done as part of strategic planning for future school building debt. He said the finance board previously had considered removing the tractor/ mower.

Members voted 5-1 to move the money out of the capital account; Emil Pavlovics dissented because he didn’t want to see any money removed from the Center for Emergency Services payments.

“I don’t like the idea of reducing the $425,000; we owe over a million as it is,” he said.

The vote to add the money to the highway department was unanimous.

First Selectman Shawn Murphy said he will support the cuts made by the Board of Finance on Wednesday, though he still takes issue with other reductions.

“I’m going to support the budget, going to encourage people to vote for it ... (but) I take issues with some of the things,” he said.

The day after the first referendum failed in June, Murphy and Selectman Nick Mullane sparred with members of the Board of Finance over their proposed cuts.

Though the finance board cut several line items, it was $90,000 in town road maintenance and highway labor that caused a breakdown in cooperation.

Murphy accused the finance board

of not allowing him to speak during certain parts of its meeting as an ex officio member, and finance board members said he didn’t heed their calls to bring more significant cuts to the table.

Murphy said the reduction of highway labor money would cause the transfer station to close on Saturdays, money for winter plowing would be tight and road maintenance would be deferred. He and the other selectmen also have reconsidered the town’s maintenance of certain private roads to rein in spending.

Alternate Bob Testa, along with other finance board members, has questioned whether closing the transfer station on Saturdays was necessary under the previously proposed budget, and suggested reductions in highway department staffing.

Members of the Board of Finance in August walked out of a hearing on the budget that had been called by the selectmen, questioning the selectmen’s authority to call the hearing.

Leading up to the second referendum, members of the Board of Finance became frustrated with Murphy when he altered a finance board slide, part of a town meeting presentation to explain the budget process, that was later posted to the town’s website.

The slide originally said: “(Board of Finance) members decided to revise the budget with the help of the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education.” But Murphy changed the word “with” to “without,” explaining that he felt he wasn’t consulted on the cuts.

Murphy said he emailed the finance board about making the change, but didn’t hear back.

Board of Finance member Carolyn Howell said the board chose not to respond to the email because its members felt the presentation should be posted as they wrote it.

“It’s inconsiderate, it’s misleading,” Howell said of the revision.

Members also were frustrated with Murphy’s decision to mail out a flier asking residents to vote against the budget and instructing them how to answer the advisory questions. He paid for the flier with his own money.

After the Sept. 20 referendum failed, Board of Finance members also were upset with Murphy’s decision to place advisory questions on it. The questions asked voters their opinions on cuts that Murphy disagreed with.

The questions only sought the opinion of those who voted against the budget, and the finance board argued that therefore the responses did not provide a clear indication of what the majority of voters wanted.

Those who did answer the advisory questions wanted funding restored, which Murphy said was a mandate.

The Board of Finance voted to hold a budget hearing at 7 p.m. Oct. 11 in the elementary school, pending school approval.