Naugatuck Residents Reject Budget Referendum Again

If you don’t first succeed at getting a budget approved in Naugatuck try, try, and now try again.

Borough officials have to hope the third time is the charm as Paul Singley, of the Waterbury Republican-American, reports via Twitter, that Naugatuck residents soundly rejected both the Board of Education and municipal budgets at Tuesday’s budget referendum.

The municipal budget was defeated by more than 2,500 votes and the schools budget was rejected by more than 2,400 votes, the Citizen’s Times reports.

It means it’s back to the drawing board for both Borough and top school officials who are going to have to make further reductions to both budget.

The proposed municipal and schools budget if it had been approved for fiscal 2014-15 would have seen an increase in spending of about $2.89 million from the previous fiscal year. Under the proposed budget, there would have been a lower mill rate for taxpayers.

But clearly that is not enough for residents.

The proposed municipal budget is $52.5 million, an increase of $1.26 million from the previous fiscal year while the Board of Education budget is $61.1 million, an increase of $1.62 million from the previous fiscal year.

Officials cut $1.43 million from the budget after the first budget proposal failed in July, the Republican-American reports.

According to the Waterbury Republican-American a homeowner with an average house assessed at $121,131 would pay $5,410 in taxes in the 2014-15 fiscal year if the budget is adopted -- that is $16 less than that person paid in 2013-14.

Position from those including Matt Katrra who want the budget reduced further: Katra issued this statement in August.

For the second time, volunteers, who want to see less spending in our Borough and Board of Education budgets, completed the hard work of gathering and submitting enough signatures to petition for a referendum on both of the 2014-2015 Town and Board of Education budgets. The signed petitions were submitted today to the Naugatuck Town Clerk’s Office. Over 1800 signatures were submitted.

The Naugatuck voters are once again asking for Mayor Robert Mezzo, the Board of Burgesses, and the Finance Board to make additional cuts and to eliminate new spending. We have again experienced the reluctance to decrease spending by Mayor Mezzo and his administration in the last adopted budget, but the residents of Naugatuck are now going to have their say in the voting booth.

Mayor Mezzo and many members of the Joint Boards said they would decrease spending after hearing from the voters, but minimal savings were adopted. Still now, Naugatuck residents are subjected to read in the newspaper that the Board of Education has decided to use the additional Alliance Grant this year to add numerous administrative positions. These positions will create further financial burdens on the residents with no guarantee of additional Alliance funds in the future. This is irresponsible and exactly why the Mayor and Joint Board members have to decrease spending.

The overwhelming amount of residents in Naugatuck, who voted in the last referendum, mandated that these elected and appointed officials hold the line on new spending and tax increases.

The support that this second petition for a referendum on the budgets has received is tremendous and Mayor Mezzo and the Joint Boards have to decrease spending, as was mandated in the first budget referendum. The Mayor can and must do better. It is time for positive changes in Naugatuck. The residents of Naugatuck are tired of the name calling and false accusations that this referendum is political. Naugatuck deserves better.”

Mayor Bob Mezzo’s response from August to Katra was:

Naugatuck Mayor Bob Mezzo provided Naugatuck Patch with his thoughts on plans for a second budget referendum, and his reaction to some of the critical comments made about his administration and management of the budget.

Here is Mayor Mezzo’s full statement to Naugatuck Patch concerning the upcoming second budget referendum.

“For the first time in our history, we are having a referendum on a budget that actually reduces taxes. Spending cuts were made after the first referendum. Many cuts were made prior to the adoption of the initial budget. At this late point in the process, there are no further cuts to be made that would have any significant impact to taxpayers without engaging in budgetary gimmicks that would have harmful effects in years to come. On the contrary, further cuts could negatively impact our quality of education and quality of life.

I am disappointed that no one in the group pushing for another referendum is willing to go on record with any specific proposals for cuts. If we are talking about cutting the golf course, or ending the fireworks show or Santa’s village or eliminating certain education positions; voters should know where the members of the petition group stands. I do not support any such cuts, but am willing to state so publicly. We can not default on our financial obligations, refuse to comply with state and federal mandates, or simply change employee compensation outside of the state’s collective bargaining process. There are more positions already eliminated from this budget than any other of which I have been involved. Regardless of who is mayor, burgess or finance board member; this reality and the numbers associated with the budget will not be different. Gradual, strategic change is the only way to improve our local government. I state this as the chief executive of the community in which I have lived my entire life. Ultimately it is up to the people to determine who they believe.

Mr. Katra’s reference to the Alliance Grant funding has no relevance to the budget process. Alliance funding is not included in our local budget and is overseen by the state Department of Education. Each district must submit a plan to the state for approval before any dollars are spent. While it is unlikely that Alliance funding will be eliminated any time soon, both state and Alliance district officials understand that funds are not supposed to be used for ongoing, regular operating expenses. The reference is made by the same individual who stated at the public hearing that we had not bothered to solicit bids for costly health insurance; even though we had already changed carriers at the time. Apparently when one tells residents exactly what they want to hear, accountability for actual facts is quite low.

It is time for positive changes in Naugatuck” certainly sounds like a political campaign slogan to me. I wish we could have had a real one of those last fall, when non-specific proposals about serious issues like taxes and spending could have been vetted on a stage in front of the entire community,” Mezzo said.