TIVERTON — The consequences of the taxpayer revolt that materialized at the annual Financial Town Meeting on Wednesday will take a long time to play out.

But yesterday, it was too soon for town officials to even guess what might happen.

Town Council president Louise Durfee said, “I don’t think anybody has thought through yet what the next steps are, other than trying to analyze what can be done and how.”

By a margin of nearly two to one, 255 to 151, voters on Wednesday refused to authorize the town to increase the $26.9 million tax levy by more than 5 percent for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Five percent growth, to about $28.2 million, would have been the legal limit had the state not granted exemptions allowing the Budget Committee to seek a tax levy of about $30.2 million from voters — $2 million over the cap.

The excess was intended to cover about a $1 million hike in debt service and a projected $1.1 million reduction in non-tax revenues.

“Obviously we were faced by a taxpayer revolt,” Durfee said yesterday.

She cited a confluence of economic indicators that painted the town into a corner and at the same time put people in a tax-cutting mood.

Or as Budget Committee chairman Christopher Cotta put it the previous evening, there was a “supercollision of everything wrong happening at the same time,” including a bad economy and a cut in state aid to cities and towns.

“What we saw were people angry at the oil companies; people who were angry at oil heating costs,” Durfee said.

With the price of gasoline approaching $4 a gallon, they were saying, “this is not something that we can control. Let’s take it out on the powers that be,” Durfee said.

But voters did not think through the consequences, Durfee said.

“How does a community operate its core functions?” she asked.

The Financial Town Meeting has been recessed for a week — the time period specified by the Home Rule Charter — but town officials say that will not be nearly enough time for them to figure out how to live with the $2 million the voters cut from the Budget Committee’s proposed tax levy — if the town can manage at all.

Until now, the School Committee has resisted the idea of suing the town for more money, limiting its proposed increase in operations to 2.7 percent and cutting 6½ positions from the payroll next fall.

But Wednesday night’s vote places the topic of a lawsuit in an entirely different light, according to Denise deMedeiros, chairwoman of the School Committee.

State law allows school districts to go to court if they do not believe they can meet all their legal and contractual obligations with the amount of money allotted by the town.

The law also says schools must make a good-faith effort to work with the money they are given. School districts may file complaints only after they have documented a revenue shortage, have asked the Town Council for more money, and have been turned down.

In neighboring Portsmouth, where the School Committee sued the town after a special Financial Town Meeting held in August 2006, the case did not come before a trial judge until March 2007.

DeMedeiros said a School Committee meeting will be held next Tuesday to begin assessing the “damage” done at the Financial Town Meeting. Although the effects of taxpayer resentment will likely be felt throughout the school and municipal budgets, more than anything else, voters balked at a $1 million hike in debt service — nearly 50 percent — resulting from a school construction bond approved in 2004.

DeMedeiros said yesterday, “I do take offense” at the notion “that this was some kind of underhanded thing that we got that bond,” deMedeiros said.

“It’s disturbing to me that they’re telling us we didn’t do due diligence,” she said.

On Wednesday, taxpayers had copies of a 2004 flyer that made it clear that the cost of paying for school renovations and new construction would add hundreds of dollars a year to the typical tax bill.

For a home valued at $200,000, the estimated increase was pegged at $214 a year. And for a $400,000 property, the average cost — just for the construction bond — would be $428 annually, according to the handout, prepared by the School Committee in advance of the referendum.

“People just don’t like the tax,” she said. “Maybe some people weren’t paying attention.”

Cotta, the Budget Committee chairman, pointed out Wednesday that the school bond was approved in much better financial times.

Since then, the downturn in the housing market and the escalating price of oil have had ripple effects throughout the economy.

The town’s non-tax revenue for the next fiscal year is expected to decline by about $1.1 million, according to the Budget Committee.

Cotta said projections for all kinds of fees, including building permits, recording fees, and others, have dropped.

Earlier this month, the state cut $12.5 million from aid to cities and towns in the current fiscal year, which will depress the amount of revenue in the coming budget as well.

In addition, the town for the first time in recent memory must forgo tapping into the general fund to offset taxes, leaving a $900,000 revenue hole that must be filled.

Until two years ago, the levy enacted by the voters at the annual Financial Town Meeting included a cushion to cover uncollectible taxes and tax abatements, Cotta explained.

And when extra money trickled in, it went to the general fund, helping to replenish monies used to offset taxes, he said.

But there has been no such cushion in the last two years, when the town exceeded the state limit on tax increases, Cotta said, and the general fund has dwindled to about $1,266,000.

That amount is barely enough to meet a requirement of the Town Charter that the town maintain reserves equivalent to 3 percent of its operating budget.

Cotta said, “you got the benefit of the $900,000 (from the general fund) in your taxes this year. Now you want to cry about it.”

Town officials, including Cotta and Durfee, told voters Wednesday that the town must pay its legal and contractual obligations, not only the debt service on the schools, but minimum-manning requirements in the Police and Fire departments, as well as other requirements.

Yesterday, Durfee said the town must make payments on the purchase of heavy equipment and must pay pension obligations and health care, among other things.

The town also has a contract with its trash hauler, Durfee said, although it could charge residents a fee for pickup, an idea floated by town officials on Wednesday.

“The town administrator has begun to analyze these types of things,” she said.

Town Administrator James Goncalo did not return a reporter’s phone call yesterday.

If the town does not comply with the minimum-manning requirements, Durfee said, it would end up in arbitration, which will run up legal fees.

“We may have to make some very difficult decisions,” she said.

If the town does not have enough money to meet existing contractual obligations and went into bankruptcy to restructure these labor agreements, it would have an effect on the town’s ability to borrow money, Durfee said.

Bond rating agencies would not only raise rates for the town but would also look at the state’s credit, Durfee said.

gmacris@projo.com