Notes from the Board of Aldermen (May 6 & Budget)
Compensation of City Officials; Grants; and the City & Board of Education Budgets
The Milford Board of Aldermen has met regularly throughout April and early May, hearing from every city department on their budgets — but the May 6th meeting was regular business. In light of this, I thought it best to withhold my “notes” on the budget discussions until they were completed and my colleagues received more information about financial repercussions (see my perspective below under “The Budget”).
But to be upfront, the vote on the entire budget will happen May 13. And in the spirit of not “burying the lede,” a mill this year equates to $7.9 million, meaning $12 million would need to be cut from the proposed budget to prevent tax increases. What does that mean for your bottom line? According to Chief of Staff Justin Rosen, if the Board of Finance recommended budget passes, a house assessed at $390,000 could expect a $410 tax hike this upcoming year.
That is not chump change. To me, that’s a significant increase, particularly to those on fixed incomes.
Back to the May 6th meeting. It began with Mayor Tony Giannattasio honoring the Milford Board of Education’s music program, which was recently awarded as one of the Best Communities for Music Education (BCME) by the NAMM Foundation. This is the fourth consecutive year the city and school system has received the national honor. Congratulations to our teachers and students!
During Public Comment, most of the residents who addressed the Board were associated with the Milford Preservation Trust, a group charged “to save Milford’s historic places and properties.” Residents expressed concerns with the over-development of downtown Milford, calling for much-needed protection of historical landmarks. They were particularly upset about the development behind the former Smith Funeral Home at 147 Broad Street. As a History major and author of a history newsletter for my day job (find it here), I do sympathize with preserving physical connections to our city’s past — not only for aesthetics or retaining the city’s “character,” but for teaching. (Granted, the sad reality is that not every historic building can be saved.)
To the business conducted, Alderman Win Smith requested that approval of the State Homeland Security Grant Program be postponed until next month. He is meeting with Homeland Security representatives for clarification of the contract’s terms on May 10. Seeing no issue with Alderman Smith doing his due diligence, the Board unanimously approved.
The next item concerned an “Ordinance Establishing Compensation of City Officials and Employees in the Service of the City of Milford.” This ordinance had been postponed twice in March and April in order to obtain more information about the financial implications. As I mentioned in my previous “Notes,” Finance Director Peter Erodici stated:
“The cumulative impact to the general fund FY25 budget overall would be $152,182 [$95,210 FY24 plus $56,972 FY25 equals the $152,182]. The FY25 BOF budget has these salaries at FY23 rates. Technically, this increase is offset by the Benefit & Salary reserve in the budget. This reserve funding is used to cover the retroactive pay. The current balance is $495,165.”
This ordinance concerned city officials not represented by collective bargaining agreements, positions like Director of Finance, Human Resources Director, Chief of Staff, Director of Recreation, Health Director, Economic & Community Development Director, Director of Public Works, the Library Director and others. The rationale offered for the pay increases was based on a survey completed by a contractor who studied the salaries of a dozen comparable towns (with population sizes between 45-65,000). Essentially, the raises would make Milford competitive for talent. However, my hesitation, as expressed by Alderman Smith during the meeting, is that in a year of tax increases, I could not vote for an item that would lead to higher taxes on Milford residents (again, more on that below). The ordinance passed 11-4.
Meanwhile, Jolyn Washington-Walker, who was nominated by the mayor to replace Kevin McGrath on the Fire Commission, was removed from the agenda — another wrinkle in this never-ending saga. As to why the nomination was dropped, I have no information at this time; if I learn more, I will follow-up in my next “Notes.”
Additionally, the Board of Aldermen approved grants that the city could apply for that would benefit Human Services, Youth and Family Services Activities and the Office of of Early Childhood. While there were no fixed dollar amounts, the city has received $40,000; $60,000; and more than a million dollars, respectively, in previous years. All were unanimously approved, as well as a budget transfer of $20,000 after the Fire Department sold a truck — which I highlight because the truck is now, apparently, in a museum in Turkey!
The Board also approved a contract regarding the removal of storm debris and the grant application/cash advance of $5,000 to benefit the Milford Community Gardens. Kudos to Alderman Jason Jenkins for finding the grant to help the city’s residents.
The Budget
As it currently stands, this year’s budget — both the city and Board of Education — is $257,825,012. For reference, last year’s approved total was $253,005,947.
Breaking it down:
For clarification, the 2024-25 figures in the table above are based on the Board of Finance recommendations. The original asks for both the mayor and Board of Education were:
Mayor Recommends: $147,842,037
Board of Education Request: $111,285,770
In short, the Board of Finance raised the city budget by more than $30,000; while reducing the Board of Education’s ask by $1.3 million. At the end of the day, both budgets have increased — so the notion of a “cut” is not accurate. Cut implies the operating budget was reduced below the prior year’s expenses, which isn’t the case.
Yet this is the second consecutive year the Board of Education budget has experienced a reduction in its budget request per the Board of Finance’s recommendation. Last year, however, the ramifications of not adding funds back into the Board of Education budget would’ve resulted in the closing of a middle school (most likely Harborside). At the time, there was no long-term plan for a closure — which would’ve caused much emotional and financial distress to Milford. Plus, the budget would not have fulfilled contract obligations.
This time around, the stakes are different. Below is a list of the possible areas Superintendent Dr. Anna Cutaia presented that may be impacted if the entire request is not fully funded:
However, during the Budget deliberations, several of my Aldermen colleagues questioned whether the increase was warranted given Test Scores trending in the wrong direction across English & Language Arts (ELA), Math and Science. According to CT.gov’s EdSight, Milford’s results over the past several years were:
Obviously, the pandemic is often cited as to why Milford students are lagging behind their counterparts from years before.
Additionally, another concern expressed by my colleagues was the decline in enrollment (see below); and while SLAM’s projections over the next decade show Milford’s enrollment will remain relatively consistent (i.e., between 5,000-6,000), our neighbors in Stratford are forecasted to see a dip by a couple of hundred students.
Which leads to one of my concerns: are we spending wisely? If per-pupil spending continues to increase yet our students’ performances remain lackluster, are we truly giving them a quality education that focuses on the fundamentals like reading, writing, and math? True, the Test Scores mentioned above are a snapshot in time — but so are regular exams during the year. Perhaps it might not be the most fair barometer of a school district’s performance, but it’s one of the few digestible metrics regular residents (and non-residents) can quickly understand and use when considering sending their students to Milford Public Schools (MPS).
For those who are wondering, despite District Resource Groups (DRGs) no longer being utilized by school administrators to gauge metrics (which Dr. Cutaia informed us at our budget deliberations), here is how Milford performed when compared to other districts in our former DRG:
According to CT.gov’s EdSight, Milford’s 2022-23 Test Scores ranked 15th in ELA, 17th in Math, and 20th in Science. Meanwhile, the district ranked 3rd in Per Pupil Spending. Bottom line, judging by these numbers and comparisons between districts, perhaps MPS and we need to think differently on how to effectively spend taxpayers’ dollars to help our students achieve their full potential. In the end, we all want the same thing: good schools and well-educated students to lead our city, state and nation in the years to come.
However, in a year where taxes are expected to increase by hundreds of dollars per household, it’s the Board of Aldermen’s mission to lessen that burden. Therefore, I believe it is wise to check the Board of Education’s — and city’s — spending and find common ground on how to best position Milford as a great place to live (which it is according to Money Magazine!).
Overall, this is not an easy matter. But with several days left before the vote, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to comment below or email me at afowler@milfordct.gov.
You can watch the full meeting here: