Letter To The Editor: Why I Support The Proposed Fairfield Budget

To the editor,

I want to commend First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick for her political courage in preparing a budget that looks out for the long-term financial interests of the town of Fairfield as opposed to taking the politically easy way out.

Last year, after the COVID pandemic caused the shutdown of our state and our lives, the Board of Finance and the RTM, in bipartisan votes, significantly changed the first selectwoman’s budget. They reduced the funding of many long term liabilities of the town — notably retiree benefits, union wage reserves for unsettled contracts, the annual contribution to the town’s fund balance and utilized some available debt offsets to lower debt service costs.

Also, the Board of Finance, in a very creative way, assisted the Board of Education by setting up a special fund that allowed the Board of Education to utilize unused funds from their prior year budget to offset expenses, (many related to COVID), in the current year budget.

In total, the town bodies deferred funding existing expenses by over $10 million in last year’s budget.

Notice, I did not say that the Board of Finance or the RTM significantly reduced expenses. They did not. The expenses were incurred and exist. They are the result of existing contracts as well as long-standing town financial policies implemented to safeguard the town’s financial position for the mid- to long-term. The decisions about these items made last year were delaying/deferring the funding of these expenses in the short-term to achieve a zero percent tax increase for the taxpayers during a very difficult time.

Having just finished 14 years of service on the Board of Finance, and 10 years as its chairman, I was well aware of what was being done. I was also supportive of their efforts and give them great credit for the bipartisan and creative manner in which they worked on behalf of the taxpayers and the town.

I was also quite appreciative of the bipartisan acknowledgement by all parties that these were short-term measures that would need to be reversed to preserve the town’s financial strength, AAA credit rating and to allow the financial flexibility required due to the financial uncertainties in the near- to mid-term, because of fill pile remediation costs, infrastructure needs totaling more than $300 million in the next decade, and future contracts that are subject to state binding arbitration laws.

Which brings us to this year. A significant increase in the town’s grand list results in increased revenues for the town without imposing any mill rate increase. The first selectwoman could have used these increased revenues to lower taxes and declared victory in the eyes of all taxpayers. It would have been the politically expedient and popular thing to do.

The only problem is — it would have been wrong. Such a decision would weaken the town moving forward. It would ultimately cost taxpayers more money. It is a Hartford-style financial move that, at the state level, has us categorized in the financial world as one of the poorest financially managed states in the nation. Such policies have resulted in billions in underfunded liabilities and left Connecticut close to bankruptcy. Seemingly, taxpayers facing new tax proposals every year as a result of years of these decisions.

Instead, Brenda proposed a fiscally responsible budget that appropriately funds our long-term obligations by including the $10 million in funding that was reduced last year. She increased Board of Education funding by $7.5 million, (4 percent), continuing our long-standing commitment to quality education and proposed a year-over-year 2.5 percent spending increase in town operating costs with much of it related to delayed capital equipment needs for town departments, impacting safety and maintenance costs.

In addition, Brenda began a long-awaited reorganization of town government. This reorganization is designed to improve service, embrace technology and, ultimately, cost taxpayers less money. This is a long-term initiative and will take many years, if done correctly. In my view, good government and fiscal conservatism requires our leaders to make tough decisions and consider the long-term best interests of Fairfield as opposed to their own short term political gain.

Far too often, politicians are rewarded for thinking short-term. Sadly, we have sometimes seen it here in Fairfield. It almost always leads to citizens facing unforeseen and, at times, unsurmountable financial and services issues.

I am proud to support the first selectwoman’s proposed budget. I would hope my colleagues on the other town bodies would live up to the spirit of their deliberations and the decisions they made last year. It’s politically seductive to take the easy way out. However, it is not in the best interests of the town or the taxpayers to do so. Not funding incurred liabilities or abandoning long adopted financial policies that have put the town on a firm financial foundation on an ongoing basis is not fiscally responsible.

In fact, I would find it intellectually dishonest given the discussions of last year’s budget season.

Regards,

Tom Flynn

Selectman

Former chairman of the Board of Finance