Referendum puts proposed $43 million Mansfield budget to another test

At the May 12 Town Meeting, a motion was made to remove funding for the Storrs Center project. Photo © Brenda Sullivan.

What seemed like a done deal on May 12 is back before voters on Tuesday – and that is the 2009-2010 budget.

The $43,010,137 budget originally passed 463 to 89 at the Annual Town Meeting held at the Mansfield Middle School, at which the vote was taken via paper ballot. (See “Voters OK $43 million budget,“  in Mansfield Today.)

Preceding the vote, a motion was made by David Freudmann to eliminate funding in the budget for the Storrs Center project, and another was made by Ric Hossack to reduce the education budget by $150,000. Both failed.

Voters will have another chance to make their wishes known, at a referendum that has been called under a section of the Town Charter that allows voters to petition for a referendum after a Town Meeting vote.

More than 400 residents signed the petition – almost as many people as showed up at the Town Meeting – circulated by the same group that petitioned for a referendum last year, Save Mansfield CT [www.savemansfieldct.org]  Only about 251 signatures were needed.

Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the Audrey P. Beck Municipal Building (town hall), at the intersection of Routes 195 and 275 (South Eagleville Road).

This is the second year the budget has been sent to referendum via petition by Save Mansfield CT.

Last year, more than 2,000 voters turned out and it was a close vote.

The June 24, 2008 referendum passed a $43.7 million budget with a vote of 1169 to 1094.

If the budget is defeated this year, it will be sent back to the Town Council for changes.

Town operations versus education

The referendum will also include advisory questions that appear to reflect an ongoing schism between spending for town operations versus spending for running the town’s four schools (excluding the high school).

A sign outside Mansfield Middle School at the May 12 Town Meeting. Photo © Brenda Sullivan.

The questions ask voters whether they believe the town budget is too high (or too low), or if the education budget is too high (or too low) – when traditionally in most cities and towns in the state, the education portion of the budget is much higher than town operations.

In Mansfield’s case, the town operations part of the proposed budget is $12,489,750 (a decrease of 1.3 percent), and the K-8 education portion is $20,595,570 (a decrease of 1.6 percent).

Despite efforts to cut costs on the town side – including layoffs and hiring freezes and employee concessions – the tax rate would increase (less than one mill) because of the drop in state and federal revenues amounting to approximately $1.2 million.

The estimated mill rate increase based on $1.2 million less in state funds. Photo © Brenda Sullivan.

The estimated tax increase would be 0.47 mills, from 25.24 to 25.71 mills – or the equivalent of about $94 in additional taxes for someone who owns a home assessed at $200,000.

Posted June 15, 2009

Also see related story, “Storrs Center defended as long-term solution to flagging funding,” published May 13, 2009.

An overview of the proposed budget – as approved at the May 12, 2009 Town Meeting – is available on the town Web site at http://www.mansfieldct.org/

Sen. Prague urges Gov. Rell to sign bill on blocking ash landfill

Sen. Edith Prague. -----

An Open Letter to Gov. M. Jodi Rell regarding Franklin ash dump legislation –

Dear Gov. Rell,

At this writing [June 12, 2009], Senate Bill 3 rests atop your desk awaiting enactment or veto ahead of next week’s deadline.

SB3, if enacted, would prohibit the acquisition or use of a pristine, sensitive parcel of land in Franklin for a colossal ash dump.

I urge you to sign this bill.

To do so would not only preserve that land, but safeguard the drinking water of most Franklin residents, whose wells tap the aquifer beneath.

Likewise you would protect the water quality of the adjacent Shetucket River, from which Sprague residents draw their drinking water.

Outdated methods

As urgent as these environmental issues are, please know this initiative is about so much more.

First, the 21-year-old method through which these dumps are sited is outdated and flawed. I remain incredulous that CRRA has yet to demonstrate its need for a new facility; the process should begin with DEP certification of need.

This is especially true given the estimated 17-year lifespan of an existing, comparable dump in Putnam, only a short distance away, where 400 additional acres are available for expansion thereafter.

Money as a carrot

There is apparently a great deal of money involved, too, because CRRA has offered Franklin $5 per ton of ash it would dump: $1.5 million for the estimated 300,000 tons of ash per year.

Signs like this one have been posted along Route 32 leading into Franklin. Photo by Brenda Sullivan.

But town residents voted overwhelmingly to reject the plan and the money, expressing their preference to preserve their quality of life.

In light of all this, your veto of this bill would show complete disregard for the well-being of those it would harm the most and their opinions, voiced almost as one through the ballot box.

Your veto would also be contrary to the vote of all but 4 Republican Senators when our chamber resoundingly approved the bill last month.

Please sign Senate Bill 3 and join all of us who have been working to avoid what would become an irreversible ecological disaster.

Sincerely, Sen. Edith G. Prague – 19th District

[Editor's note: The CRRA, a quasi-governmental agency charged with disposing of the ash generated by burning the state's trash, has been directed to close the existing ash dump in Hartford and has selected a 570-acre site behind the former Franklin Mushroom Farm on Route 32, along the river, as its preferred new dump site. The CRRA has begun testing on the privately-owned property. Current laws give the town of Franklin little or no say in whether the dump will be sited at that location.

SB3 or Public Act 09-112 is entitled, An Act Prohibiting the Acquisition or Use of Certain Parcels of Land as Ash Residue Disposal Areas and Concerning the Operation of a Food-waste-to-energy plant. Its purpose is to "prohibit the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority [CRRA] from purchasing, condemning, accepting title to, using or otherwise acquiring certain parcels of land[ in the town of Franklin, and the town of Windham] for the purpose of establishing an ash residue disposal area.

It also states, “No certificate of environmental compatibility and public need under chapter 277a of the general statutes and no permit under section 22a-208a of the general statutes shall be issued for the construction or operation of a food-waste-to-energy plant in a distressed municipality (1) with a population of more than one hundred thousand, and (2) in which a liquefied natural gas storage facility of not less than ten million and not more than fifteen million gallons and a combustion turbine power plant of less than one hundred megawatts are located, if such food-waste-to-energy plant would be located within two miles of one or more university regional campuses, hospitals, performing arts centers, churches and schools, including magnet schools. For the purposes of this section, “distressed municipality” has the same meaning as in section 32-9p of the general statutes.

The bill was co-sponsored by:

Sen. Edith G. Prague, 19th Dist.

Rep. Kevin Ryan, 139th Dist.

Rep. Susan M. Johnson, 49th Dist.

Rep. Jeffrey J. Berger, 73rd Dist.

Rep. Larry B. Butler, 72nd Dist.

Rep. David Aldarondo, 75th Dist.

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, 3rd Dist.

Rep. Joan A. Lewis, 8th Dist.

Rep. Barbara L. Lambert, 118th Dist.

Rep. Catherine F. Abercrombie, 83rd Dist.

Sen. Mary Ann Handley, 4th Dist.

Sen. Edwin A. Gomes, 23rd Dist.

Sen. Thomas A. Colapietro, 31st Dist.