Notes from the Board of Aldermen: The Budget Vote (May 13)
My vote on the City and Board of Education Budget
On May 13, the Milford Board of Aldermen approved the city budget for $256,302,706 and a rate of 29.14 mills “upon the ratable estate within the limits of the City of Milford,” per the ordinance passed that evening. Both are an increase from last year, which were $253,005,947 and 27.17, respectively.
This means there will be a tax increase.
In practical terms, as provided in an example by Finance Director Peter Erodici, a household assessed at $500,000 can expect a $689 tax hike. Initially, the Board of Finance Recommended Budget was at $257,825,012 and 29.31 mills (which, in the same household example, would’ve seen a tax increase of $749). The reason why both the overall budget and mills decreased mostly dealt with contributions to health insurance from both City and Board of Education employees.
The final vote was 13-2 — the nays being Aldermen Win Smith and myself. (The ordinance vote was 13-1)
Why did I vote no? Simply put, I could not vote for a tax increase on Milford’s residents. That contradicts my principles: you earned that dollar to help yourself, your family, a business or a charity. In a way, keeping that extra dollar from government coffers is a means for self-government and, therefore, less government and more individual liberty.
Now, philosophy aside, there is also a caution about raising taxes during inflation. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax policy nonprofit, suggests it’s “misguided” to do so; instead, lawmakers should “pursue tax reforms with a proven track record for growing the economy over the long run.” As to why inflation occurs is, perhaps, beyond my expertise. I look to Milton Friedman, one of the 20th century’s premier economists, who said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”
But what is driving the “quantity of money”? Most of the blame can be laid on government spending that skyrocketed during the pandemic (a side note: the United States is more than $34 trillion in debt).
These are national issues, yet they reverberate even to our “Small City with a Big Heart.” And I was conscious of these factors during the budget deliberations. But more importantly, I thought about our seniors on fixed incomes; our families concerned over their grocery bills; and even the single person who finds Connecticut — maybe even Milford — too expensive and must move elsewhere.
If our cities and communities are a microcosm to larger issues, then it is the Board of Aldermen’s objective to find avenues to help lessen the financial burden on Milford residents. That means reducing spending.
Yet the hurdle was insurmountable. As Finance Director Erodici relayed, a mill this year equates to $7.9 million, meaning more than $10 million would’ve needed to be cut from the revised budget (after the increased health contributions) to prevent tax increases. Alderman Smith proposed an amendment that could have achieved that $10 million reduction without cutting departments or services. The amendment included:
That the Appropriated Fund balance be increased by $3,700,000 for a total of $8,700,000 from the Unappropriated Fund balance (or the ‘rainy day’ fund)
The pension plan contribution be decreased by $5,900,000
A transfer of $500,000 from the General Liability fund and $500,000 from the Health Fund
Some believed the amendment may have been too risky regarding our bond rating (though Alderman Smith assured that Milford would remain above the 5% pension contribution threshold the city’s actuaries are looking for). Ultimately, the measure failed.
The main budgetary debate concerned the Board of Education (BoE). If readers will recall the previous ‘Notes,’ the BoE originally requested $111,285,770 — up from the $106,290,135 approved for 2023-24. However, the Board of Finance reduced the ask by $1.3 million (i.e., the BoE budget would be increased to $109,950,341).
To add the $1.3 million back into the budget, the Board of Aldermen needed a supermajority (or 10 votes) to do so. The Democrat caucus offered two amendments, one for the full $1.3 million and another for nearly $600,000; both failed 8-7.
My main hesitations, as expressed in the previous ‘Notes,’ is that student performance is not achieving the levels relative to our spending when compared to other school districts. While test scores are not the “be all, end all” of a student’s success, they are indicative of a district’s trajectory, at-large. Also, districts determine success differently — so for more objective data, I used results from CT.gov’s EdSight. Here are the English & Language Arts (ELA), Math and Science scores over the past several years:
When compared to our District Resource Group (DRG), which is comprised of more than 20 schools, 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.
The ultimate aim of funding schools is to improve student performance. If student performances are not improving, then we need to consider how we are allocating funding.
Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, but imagine you were a general manager for a baseball team — like the New York Mets. Currently, the Mets have the highest payroll in Major League Baseball (the remaining top five, in order, are the New York Yankees, Houston Astros, Philadelphia Phillies and the Texas Rangers). Teams are trying to buy or keep the best players to win games; however, the Mets are 21-27 — fourth in the National League East. Not to say a turnaround can’t happen — they’ve certainly done that before in 1969 — but I would bet team leaders are wondering how they could better spend their resources to improve the on-the-field play other than increasing their spending.
The same principle applies to funding any city program and department, more so in education. And education, obviously, is much more consequential than winning a World Series: we are dealing with students’ livelihoods, their dreams, and their untapped talents. If they are falling behind —or playing catch-up to — other districts in reading, writing, and math, then they are already at a disadvantage in the competitive labor force.
But wouldn’t you want to increase spending to get those test results and improve student achievement? Increased funding does not necessarily equate to student achievement. In Milford, funding has increased year after year, but the test scores (as seen above) have mostly dropped. Looking statewide, Litchfield County spending per student is the highest in the state, at $23,387; Tolland spends the least, an average of $16,972. The latter nonetheless ranks in the top three counties across all academic-performance scores. Despite the two counties’ having the widest disparity in per-pupil spending between districts, they have the narrowest achievement gap.
Essentially, we want good for our students and want them to achieve their full potential after attending Milford Public Schools. But there is a philosophical difference right now as to how to achieve that end. I believe deeper discussions need to be had between the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Education.
Those reasons, coupled with my hesitation to contribute to raising taxes, is why I voted no in adding the $1.3 million back into the Board of Education’s proposed budget.
So what was ultimately impacted by the $1.3 million? Dr. Anna Cutaia, Superintendent of Milford Public Schools, offered these proposals during the May 20th of the Board of Education:
To those who have read this far, thank you — and I hope you understand how I see the process. If you have any questions or comments feel free to post below or reach out to afowler@milfordct.gov.