KENT, Conn.—A roomful of voters passed the $16.5-million budget for 2025-26 with only a smattering of negative votes Friday, May 30, but that did not mean there were no questions asked or criticisms levied.
Most items passed without opposition, including changes to the Parks and Recreation capital plan that will prioritize restoration of the Emery Park swimming pool and create a pavilion there.
Despite First Selectman Marty Lindenmayer’s explanation that the town would simply be moving money from one line item to another, resident Chris Garrity objected to bridge funding to move the pool restoration forward. The Park and Rec Commission recommended that $250,000 budgeted for a splash pad at Kent Commons be reallocated to the pool.
It further suggested bridge funding so the pool work can be done before the splashpad was scheduled for in 2029. The $250,000 in 2029 would be “encumbered” to repay the bridge funding.
Garrity also objected to a move to eliminate the $70,000 highway parking lot fund and to redistribute the money to four other projects: $48,000 more for the highway garage doors fund; $7,000 to the highway salt brine maker account to purchase a dual-wall tank; $10,000 more for the highway compactor account; and $5,000 toward a zero-turn high mower.
Garrity, who has repeatedly questioned the way the capital fund is administered, said he has “a specific problem when you start moving money around” when it has been approved by taxpayers for given purposes.
Resident Matt Starr expressed concern about the common practice of pushing items in the capital plan back in into later years.
The plan looks at major expenditures the town expects to encounter over a 10-year period, but only items scheduled in the first five years are taxed. Once listed in the first five years, the items are taxed for annually, building the account to the point where they are fully funded.
Sometimes, however, expenditures in a given year become too much and an item is pushed back into the sixth year to reduce the tax burden.
“It looks like there is so much stuff in 2031,” Starr said. “I am really concerned that every time it looks like there is too much stuff in the first five years, it gets pushed out.”
He also argued that taxpayers are given no explanations as to why items appear in the capital plan. “There’s $500,000 for the transfer station for 2031, but no description and no public participation,” he said. “Then, there is another $300,000 a couple of years later. Those should be removed until such time as there is a public presentation and vote.”
Town Treasurer Barbara Herbst explained that there is no tax levy until it is in the five-year window, “so changing it makes no difference.”
Garrity, who was once chairman of the Board of Finance, said the five-year plan is “a good system,” but added that the town has $3,479,869 in its General Fund. He strongly suggested that the Board of Finance allocate more from it to reduce taxation. “They say it is a rainy-day fund,” he said. “I have been here 37 years, and it has never rained.”
Subsequent to the town meeting, the Board of Finance declined the suggestion.
Discussion heated up when Starr suggested that opt-out payments should be eliminated for town employees who do not participate in the town’s health insurance policy. Under municipal policy, employees who do not get health insurance through the town—which can cost the municipality up to $30,000 a year—are paid $15,000 each.
Lindenmayer explained that employees who opt-out must have personal health insurance from another source and that the payment reduces that burden.
A number of residents argued that anyone choosing not to take part in the town’s plan probably already has insurance through a partner who is insured. “Personally, I don’t feel we should offer people payment to opt out,” said Lynn Harrington. “They can’t opt out if they don’t have insurance elsewhere.”
“We’re paying them $15,000 in cash not to go on our policy,” Garrity added.
But Donna Hayes argued that the payment saves the town money because the the community does not pay the full $30,000 per employee.
Also drawing comment was the steady increase in the cost of education, despite declining enrollments and a suggestion was made that tuition costs for non-resident students should be increased substantially.
Even with the caveats and questions, the budget was approved with only about half-a-dozen nay votes. The Board of Finance set the mill rate at 16.87.
