Cheshire adopts $146 million general fund budget, sets mill rate at 29.74 mills after 5-4 vote

The Town of Cheshire Town Council on April 22 approved the fiscal year 2025–26 general fund operating budget and set the town tax rate at 29.74 mills, a measure passed 5–4 after an extended debate and a failed amendment to reduce the Board of Education request.

Budget committee chair Jim Jenks, presenting the resolution (042225-1), said the council would appropriate multiple line items including general government ($40,733,462), debt service ($11,542,771), a $100,000 contingency and $500,000 in capital nonrecurring items. Jenks said the total sum of revenues, transfers and use of general fund equity for the fiscal year would be $146,000,547 and announced the town would set tax payment dates and interest accrual consistent with Connecticut statutory sections referenced in the resolution. “This has been a very difficult budget due to the loss of state funds, the end of ARPA funds, flat grand list growth, a rapidly growing school district, higher contractual costs and significantly higher debt service demands,” Jenks said.

Why it matters: The adopted budget funds town operations and the school district while starting to pay increased debt service tied to two recently approved elementary schools. The mill rate and payment schedule set by the council determine tax bills residents will receive starting July 1, 2025.

Debate and amendment: Councilor David Velleber moved an amendment to reduce the Board of Education line by $640,000, reduce the community pool subsidy by $25,000, and use $25,000 from the NEF fund to fund a bulky‑waste drop‑off at the transfer station. Velleber argued the change would lower the mill rate to 29.58 and reinstate a popular waste service while reducing the tax impact. “We need to tighten our belt,” Velleber said during debate.

Supporters of the amendment said the change would save the average taxpayer about $52 annually and restore one public service. Opponents said the board of education has already made deep cuts during this process and further reductions risk teacher layoffs, program cuts and larger class sizes. “We have asked the board of education to cut to the bone,” Councilor Dina Allard said; “I would not be in favor of further cuts.” Several council members asked for specific information about what services would be cut before supporting additional reductions.

Vote outcomes: The amendment failed by a 6–3 vote. After continued discussion, the council adopted the original resolution setting the mill rate at 29.74 mills; the budget passed by roll call 5–4. Councilors Fiona Pearson, John Walsh, David Velleber and John Malone voted against the final budget; five councilors voted for it.

Budget impact detail and local context: Jenks and other presenters said drivers include roughly $4.7 million in lost state support (pilot programs, education cost sharing and other grants gone), the phaseout of ARPA-related funding, a rapidly growing student population and rising health‑care and contract costs. Jenks provided per‑capita and service metrics that the council used to weigh cuts: examples included library use, police incident counts, and the town’s volunteer fire responses. Jenks said the average property taxpayer will see an increase of about $673 annually, and that roughly $450 of that is attributable to school‑related debt service. Net of the school debt service increase, he said the average increase would be about $223.

Next steps and caveats: The town manager and finance director are charged with implementing the adopted appropriations and the payment schedule set by the council; payments and interest shall follow the dates specified in the resolution and the Connecticut statutory provisions cited by the council. Councilors who opposed the budget said they may press for further efficiency measures and revenue options in the next fiscal cycle, including a review of medical benefits procurement.