East Granby Finance Board Moves Budget with 3.3% Tax Increase to Town Meeting

After a two and a half hour public hearing and a subsequent hour-long meeting, the East Granby Board of Finance on Tuesday sent to a Town Meeting an $18.43 million combined 2012-13 schools and municipal budget that calls for a 3.3 percent tax increase over the current year.

Specifically, the budget, if approved by voters at the referendum tentatively scheduled for May 8, would include $14.2 million to be spent on schools and $4.23 million for municipal spending, resulting in an increase of .9 mills to the mill rate from 27 to 27.9.

The municipal budget includes a 2.83 percent spending increase over current year, while the schools budget calls for a 4.5 percent spending hike. The finance board approved sending the budget to the April 25 Town Meeting in a 4-2 vote, with Tami Zawistowski and Norman F. Hausmann casting the votes against the measure.

Most of the comments from the public hearing and the debate during the finance board deliberations centered on the schools budget, which originally called for a 4.9 percent spending increase.

During public comment, eight people spoke against the schools budget, while seven voiced their support for it. Some of the commentary was heated.

Resident Bob Sproat said that the teachers’ union, with negotiated pay increases, was responsible for driving up the costs of living in town.

“In the state of Connecticut, we have a disease,” said Sproat, noting that the student enrollment in town had dropped in recent years, but the cost of education was still increasing. “I think we have an epidemic here in East Granby. … It’s unconscionable.”

Superintendent of Schools Christine Mahoney said that the paradox was that in smaller school districts, the cost per pupil was almost universally higher because there were fewer people comprising the tax base to spread the cost around. That holds true in East Granby, Mahoney said.

In addition, magnet schools were pulling children out of East Granby into neighboring towns and Hartford, accounting for fewer students in the district, Mahoney said.

Many of the people who opposed the schools budget, including Sproat and William O’Neill, said that the district should be regionalized or that a consultant should be hired to explore areas for additional savings.

East Granby resident Cheri Burke, principal of Seymour School, said while speaking in favor of the budget, however, that regionalization actually costs more in per pupil expenditures across the board than even the smallest independent school districts.

Still, Lucia Ziobro said that she felt the school district misrepresented itself because, during the deliberations for the Seymour and Allgrove Schools renovations project, it was modeled that the school district would request a 2 percent spending increase in 2012-13.

“It is a total misrepresentation that you told the taxpayers in the community,” Ziobro said. “I don’t understand how you made that representation.”

There were those who spoke equally in favor of the budget, if not calling for additional funds to be spent on schools.

“I think more money needs to be spent on the school system,” Sally Mullen said. “I’ve taken two out of my three children out of the schools because their needs weren’t being met.”

Rob Crocker, who grew up in East Granby and currently sits on the school board, voiced his support for the budget as well.

“We have to figure out what we want and we have to fight for what we want,” Crocker said. “I picked East Granby and I’m willing for fight for it.”

What became clear for the finance board when it began deliberations was that it would not accept a 4.9 percent spending increase for the school district, despite the advocacy of alternate Mike Malloy, who said that the schools went so far as to accept 50 new students in the Project Choice program to obtain over $370,000 in state funding.

“I am uncomfortable with a 3.4 percent tax increase this year,” Hausmann said. “I hoped we would achieve a 0 percent increase to taxpayers. We did that last year with a 2.1 percent increase for both organizations. That seemed to work. … If I had to vote on a 4.9 percent [school spending] increase, I would vote ‘No.’”

Finance board Chair David K. Kilbon also said that he was uneasy with the 4.9 percent school spending increase.

“I’m struggling with [the notion that] the level of growth cannot be sustained,” Kilbon said.

The finance board first rejected a budget calling for a 2.83 percent spending increase for the municipal budget and a 4.9 percent spending increase for the schools in a 4-2 vote.

Finance board member Mark O. Porter said, however, that he supported a measure that shaved .4 percent - or $60,000 - from the schools budget.

“I’m comfortable that 4.5 percent is sufficient funds,” said Porter, who expressed his concern over the long-term financial impact in accepting 50 new Choice students in one year. “Once they work out the details, hopefully they won’t need to pull the full throttle."

Correction: The original article mischaracterized Mark Porter's quote concerning the Choice program. The Granbys Patch regrets the error. A more complete correction can be found here.