STONINGTON — Opportunity to tap rare surplus in town's undesignated fund allows Board of Finance to increase spending by nearly 8% to 2024-25 overall operating budget without raising town tax rates I was able to make adjustments to Next year.
Finance Committee members voted 6-1 Tuesday in favor of considering the $86.62 million budget recommendation in a referendum, with Chris Johnson dissenting. The approved budget includes the use of $1.51 million in surplus funds to offset taxes, which will allow us to maintain the milling rate next year at $17.45 million.
The town has been fortunate to run a surplus for the past few years, but President Timothy O'Brien and Board Member Lynne Young each warned that increased spending and changes in revenue make it unlikely to happen again.
“The public and the press should understand that this is a one-time deal,” said Finance Committee member Lynn Young. “This is not something that is going to happen or can happen.”
The final budget recommendation from the Finance Committee includes approximately $28.37 million in general government spending, $43.51 million in education spending, $7.1 million in debt, and $7.63 million in capital expenditures.
With several changes, including slight cuts in funding to school boards and human services agencies, the $70.41 million in money raised in taxes will require a flat tax rate of $17.45 million, officials said. If the surplus undesignated funds had not been used to offset the increase in the mill rate, the resulting budget would have had a mill rate of 17.82.
Although the budget was approved by the Finance Committee, it still needs to be put to a referendum, tentatively scheduled for April 30th.
For Johnson, the reason for rejecting the budget was the lack of a responsible climate change plan, which included the removal of climate resiliency items that, although vague, would have provided the town with an opportunity to respond to a range of future needs. He said that it is due to the lack of. and develop external funding sources.
“I think it would be disingenuous to have this surplus of funds and then just put it back in a haphazard way,” Johnson said. “Not really looking at climate change mitigation. Not even building a single charging station? That's not good planning.”
The finance committee is not responsible for negotiations or pay scales, a fact O'Brien reiterated on behalf of the board Tuesday night, but the current situation involving Stonington Public Schools and the Paraprofessional Educators Union The ongoing contract negotiations proved to be a hot topic throughout the Finance Committee. Annual Budget Hearing.
Over the course of the night, 17 people spoke candidly about the need to reinstate the school board's request in full, and the finance committee had previously reduced the proposed increase by $322,000. They talked about the importance of providing services to the society. Resources needed to retain critical academic staff and provide competitive wages.
Many of the district's paraprofessionals spoke about the importance of their work, including during the most difficult moments helping alleviate the various challenges students face and helping struggling students succeed.
Without further steps to help negotiate contracts and balance wages, many paraprofessionals fear they will have to quit their jobs, leave their communities, or both. .
“For 24 years, I made $19.71. I was offered a job starting at $22 an hour, not in education,” said Alison Schlink, a Pawcatuck resident and paraprofessional. “The reason I stay here is because I love my job and I love the kids and I feel like I can make a difference every day. Because we make our kids proud of who they are every day. , we have the right to grow even more.”
School Board Chairman Farouk Rajab questioned the intent, saying the proposed funding cut decision would jeopardize the position and impede negotiations.
“Children deserve the best educational services and with all these (housing) developments coming into town, we need to look at the impact of all these developments as well as increase mill rates. We are very concerned about this,” said Mr. Rajab.
However, the Finance Committee expressed further concerns about the trend of rising cost overruns as student numbers decline, with board member William Sternberg saying class sizes could drop to as low as 15 students per room. So much so that I questioned certain trends.
Other participants, including Young, also argued that the school district was unable to allocate these funds and take action for hiring, despite directing that the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER Fund) not be used for permanent positions. He expressed concern about trying to retain his profession.
Young also noted that the district received a 6.88 percent increase a year ago and will also receive funding through an additional portion of capital improvement projects. The board restored full funding for future field re-turfing and $1 million for the roof of Stonington High School. Therefore, a 4.5% increase for him compared to last year's funding should be more than enough and still allow for a good negotiation.
“We've made it clear that this type of increase is not sustainable,” Young said. “We cannot increase our operating budget any further. We have to be very careful.”
