Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfield voters defeat two budget articles; council weighs options to avoid service cuts
Summary
Fairfield voters narrowly rejected two budget articles on June 9 — one proposing roughly a 5% pay package and another to fund Public Works reserves — leaving the council to decide whether to hold a new election, reconsider the measures at an open meeting, or take no further action.
Fairfield voters on June 9 defeated two municipal ballot items, Council Chair Timothy Martin reported at the town council meeting on June 10.
Martin said Article 2, a package including wages, salaries and benefits that represented roughly a 5% increase, failed by 20 votes. Article 14, which would have added money to a Public Works equipment reserve account, also failed. Martin said the reserve account currently holds just over $100,000 and warned that the failure could leave the town scrambling to repair or replace major equipment if an unexpected breakdown occurs.
Town Manager Flewelling told the council the municipal budget is already extremely tight and that, without action, the town would revert to last year’s budget under the Town Charter until a new budget is passed. Flewelling said the insurance line covers property, casualty and fleet insurance but noted there is effectively no insurance funding available for vehicle replacement.
Councilor Kevin Kitchin said the strongest voter support in the recent election was for the request to increase fire department staffing and interpreted that as a clear sign residents favor maintaining transport services. He urged the council to review the budget data and consider options before the next meeting.
The council discussed three options for addressing the failed articles: placing the measures on a future referendum ballot, bringing them forward for an open‑floor town meeting vote, or leaving them unchanged. Kitchin suggested reconsideration at an open‑floor meeting to avoid the administrative expense of a new election, while Martin and Councilor Peter Lawrence voiced concern that low turnout at an open meeting might not accurately reflect voters’ will. Flewelling and the town clerk estimated the cost of another election at roughly $4,000.
Next steps, as discussed by councilors, include meeting with the Budget Committee to review possible revisions and to determine whether to refile either article for a later ballot or pursue an in‑person reconsideration. The town clerk and staff will prepare options and related cost estimates for the council to consider at an upcoming meeting.
