Stonington ― In a move member Chris Johnson called “haphazard,” the Board of Finance voted 6-1 after a public hearing Tuesday to keep the tax rate flat and add millions to the town’s capital improvements budget by drawing down its undesignated fund balance, also known as a “rainy day fund.”

“Honestly, I think it’s a little disingenuous to come here and say, ‘We’ve got this fund balance money to spend,’ and then it goes back in sort of haphazardly. We don’t have a system for this,” Johnson told the other members of the board.

Johnson was the lone vote against the Board of Finance decision to increase the proposed budget by almost $3 million for an $86.6 million 2024-25 town budget, an 8% increase over the current $80.2 million budget.

Voters will decide whether to approve the proposed budget at a referendum tentatively scheduled for April 30.

The board maintained the current 2023-24 mill rate of 17.45 by drawing $7.89 million from the undesignated fund balance to pay for capital improvement projects the board approved earlier in March, along with projects it added to the budget at Tuesday night’s meeting, totaling $7.63 million.

The excess $255,000 drawn from the fund to maintain the current tax rate will be applied to the town’s debt service obligations, according to Finance Director James Sullivan.

After use of the funds, the town is projected to have $1.2 million in the undesignated fund, in addition to approximately $14 million the town reserves to cover two months of operating expenses.

During deliberations, the board voted to increase spending for three significant capital projects. It voted to put $720,000 toward artificial turf replacement at the high school, $1 million toward roof replacement at the high school and $1.2 million to fully fund the town’s portion of the Alpha Avenue viaduct replacement project.

Chair Tim O’Brien explained that by setting aside the funding for these projects now, the town would realize savings in the future by reducing bonding needed to complete the work.

Johnson did not take issue with the use of undesignated funds, but he opposed how the decisions were being made.

“We’re not doing this in a way that makes any sort of sense to me. We’re just assigning fund balance to things,” Johnson said.

After the meeting adjourned, Johnson expressed frustration with the process. He said the board asked for and received public input, but then did not consider it when assigning the extra undesignated funds.

“To get all of this correspondence for items and then not act on it, it’s crazy,” he said. “Ultimately our asking for comment doesn’t amount to much,” he said.

At the same time, the board made further cuts to the 2024-25 budget, including an additional $155,000 from the school budget. The board previously voted to cut $322,589, and the additional cuts represent a 4.5% increase, to $43,515,988, over the current school budget of $42 million.

The cuts come while the district is facing contract negotiations for the schools’ paraprofessionals, many of whom spoke during Tuesday’s public hearing on the budget.

“I do not make a livable wage,” Pawcatuck resident Jaicee Getchell told finance board members.

Her voice cracking with emotion, Getchell said that despite her job as a paraprofessional for the school district, as a single mother she has to rely on food pantries and clothing vouchers to help feed and clothe her child.

A number of the paraprofessionals who spoke as well as Farouk Rajab, chair of the Board of Education, noted that starting pay for paraprofessionals in the district is $16 per hour.

Members of the finance board said that they have nothing to do with pay rates or contract negotiations; however, Rajab noted their decisions directly impact both.

“Mr. Chairman, board members, you are absolutely correct you cannot negotiate contracts, nor can you set pay scale. But, what you can do is reduce our budget and affect our ability to do those things,” he said. “Our ongoing contract negotiations are hampered by your proposed budget cuts.”

O’Brien said the budget process poses challenges in trying to balance funding requests and the needs of the town with the needs of taxpayers who may face hardships with significant tax increases.