WATERVILLE — At least two city councilors plan to uphold Mayor Nick Isgro’s city budget veto, and others on the council say they think his veto of the $37.4 million municipal and school budget will be upheld.

Councilors on July 7 voted 5-2 to approve the budget for 2015-16, but Isgro vetoed that vote the next day, saying that $58,000 in unexpected state school subsidy should go toward offsetting the tax increase, not into the surplus account.

Five of seven councilors must vote to override a veto for the veto to be quashed, so only one councilor who supported the budget has to change his or her mind.

If the council overrides the veto Tuesday, the budget will stand as is. If councilors sustain the veto, they must go back to the drawing board. They could approve the budget with changes.

Councilors Karen Rancourt-Thomas, D-Ward 7, and Sydney Mayhew, R-Ward 4, both voted against the budget July 7 and said Monday they will vote to uphold the veto.

Rancourt-Thomas said one of the reasons she supported the mayor is because of the school subsidy money.

“I believe the $58,000 should go directly toward the tax bills this year,” Rancourt-Thomas said Monday. “I think the citizens have been amazing in supporting the city and doing what was asked of them in the past. I think this is what we need to give back to them.”

A $37.4 million budget would increase the tax rate of $27.40 per $1,000 worth of valuation to $27.90, so a person with a home worth $100,000 would pay $50 more in taxes. Rancourt-Thomas said she supports a zero tax increase.

“I think that if the veto is upheld, the whole budget is going to be looked at again,” she said. “This is my own personal thought.”

Mayhew said Monday he hopes that, after councilors reflect on the situation, they will decide to put the $58,000 toward tax relief. Doing so would reduce the tax rate increase from 0.5 percent to 0.42, according to Mayhew.

Council Chairman Fred Stubbert, D-Ward 1, said didn’t know how he’d vote Tuesday but he is “tending toward supporting the veto.”

Stubbert is also concerned that the $58,000 was placed in surplus and said he expects councilors to discuss that and other budget issues, particularly if the veto is upheld.

“Then we go back to negotiating on the budget,” he said. “It doesn’t affect the city any. We continue to operate on last year’s budget.”

Councilor John O’Donnell, D-Ward 5, said he thinks the veto probably will be upheld.

“And then we’ll have to redo a budget with a different number. Probably the $58,000 will be applied toward expenses and $58,000 less will be taken from savings,” he said.

O’Donnell said the city has used surplus money the last three years toward balancing the budget, continually drawing down the surplus, which is recommended not be less than 12 percent of a budget.

“I think our point is, at some point, guys, we’ve got to realize that the surplus has got to be built up somehow,” he said.

He said the city has “already used $900,000 from savings to make this budget work.” He said putting the $58,000 into the surplus account is not “that we’re taking extra money we got and putting it in savings; we’re just taking less out of savings.”

Councilor Dana Bushee, D-Ward 6, said she thought councilors didn’t have enough time to discuss the budget before voting on it.

She said she is “kind of on the fence” about whether to support or override the veto, but she said she agrees with O’Donnell that the council appears to be heading in the direction of upholding it. Then, she said, councilors probably will discuss the placement of the $58,000 and any other issues of concern and vote on the budget again, with changes.

“I feel like what the veto has done is allowed us to talk about the budget a little bit more,” she said. “I think once we talk about it, it will be a pretty easy vote.”

Calls placed to councilor Nathaniel White, D-Ward 2, and Rosemary Winslow, D-Ward 3, were not returned immediately.

In a separate issue, Stubbert said he was also concerned about a 4-3 council vote on July 7 not to establish a community and economic development office and hire a community and economic development director. He said he plans to ask the council to reconsider the question soon.

Bushee said the July 7 meeting was long and chaotic and she didn’t think councilors were ready to vote on the economic development issue, but she is “completely for economic development” and just needed more time to consider the request.

Tuesday’s meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. in the council chambers at The Center and will be preceded by a public meeting at 6 p.m. on proposed changes to the Main, Water and Bridge street intersection. Results of a study done by Gorrill Palmer Planning Decisions Inc. will be presented, including four options for making the intersection safer and more user-friendly for motorists and pedestrians.

Amy Calder — 861-9247

acalder@centralmaine.com

Twitter: @AmyCalder17