Preston — The Board of Finance made cuts to both the submitted town and school budgets this week, but several spending items remain in question, as well as proposed state revenue cuts that could leave the town with a $1 million revenue shortfall, finance board Chairman Norman Gauthier said.

The finance board approved combined town, school, capital and debt service budgets totaling $16.07 million this week, a 2.3 percent spending increase. But Gauthier said that does not include Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's controversial plan to have municipalities pay one-third of state teacher retirement pensions.

That proposal would add another $457,631 to the total budget, bringing the overall increase to 5.2 percent.

“With the other state reductions, we're still about $1 million short on the state aid,” Gauthier said. “Right now, unless we find some more revenues, we're looking at a 20 percent tax increase. But that's not yet firm, because we haven't finalized the revenues yet.”

Gauthier said the Board of Finance will vote at its April 19 meeting to ask the Board of Selectmen to postpone the annual budget town meeting held in May to allow more time to learn about possible changes to the state budget. Gauthier said that would make the local numbers more accurate.

Major budgetary questions remain at the local level, as well. In the town government budget, the finance board voted unanimously to reduce the number of resident state troopers from two to one, saving $209,000. The board also rejected a request by Fire Chief Tom Casey to add an overnight shift paid firefighter to cover times when call response by volunteers is low. Those two cuts left the town government budget at $3.4 million, a 1 percent reduction from this year's budget.

But both of those changes remain up in the air. The Board of Selectmen next week expects to receive a report from the Emergency Services Advisory Committee with analysis of proposals for police coverage from Norwich and Ledyard, as well as the current resident state trooper program.

The Board of Finance will invite Casey and the Emergency Services Committee to its April 19 regular meeting to discuss both the police coverage proposals and the proposed third-shift paid firefighter.

Casey said Friday he was aware of the Board of Finance vote, but not its reasoning. He said he will attend the April 19 meeting.

First Selectman Robert Congdon said he would have preferred the Board of Finance to delay cuts on the public safety issues until receiving the police coverage proposal and until Casey addressed the board on the firefighter position.

“But having said that, there are very few places we can come close to addressing the impacts of the state budget,” Congdon said. “We know, even if (the state aid cut) is half of what the governor is planning to do, it’s still devastating.”

The same uncertainties over the state budget were applied to the school budget deliberations. The Board of Education voted in March to add $248,300 to its expense budget to account for an expected loss of state special education funding. But the Board of Finance voted 4-2 to remove that same amount. Before the cut, the proposed school budget would have totaled $11.8 million, a 5.7 percent increase. Removing the item brought the total to $11.6 million, a 3.5 percent increase.

“Overall, we thought the 5.7 percent increase was way too high and was not going to fly in this budget year,” Gauthier said. “And second, some of us have our fingers crossed that that won't fly through the legislature, and we'll get that money back, and it would go directly to the Board of Education.”

In a memo to staff issued following the Board of Finance cuts, Superintendent John Welch said that in combination with the Board of Education's $63,515 cut to his initial proposed budget, the total cut would be $311,815 if the state Special Education Excess Cost Sharing Grant is not restored.

“So, while it is still early in the budget process, a reduction of $311,815 is significant,” Welch wrote in the memo. “Although it will be incumbent upon the (Board of Education) to approve whatever reductions are necessary in order to live within next year’s appropriation, barring more favorable news relative to funding, it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to avoid reductions that do not impact personnel.”

c.bessette@theday.com