New London council approves city and education budgets amid heated public comment and calls for more transparency

The New London City Council on May 12 adopted the city government budget and the Board of Education budget after an evening of public comment and extended debate over whether one-time federal and non-lapsing funds should be used to cover recurring school operating costs.

Public commenters, many of them teachers, urged the council to delay action and provide more funding for schools and staff. "I would ask that the councilors vote to give us a little more time," Sarah Turner said, adding she did not feel comfortable with the board being at third reading so quickly. Gabriel Beluccio, a music teacher at Veil Howe Elementary School, accused the council of prioritizing police funding over schools: "What we are showing our kids is that their school apparently isn't worth fully funding, but the police are." Eric Blum, vice president of the teachers union, described health problems that have kept him from teaching and said he had helped negotiate the contract the board approved, asking councilors to "voice it while you still have the chance" to support teachers.

Councilors and the mayor framed the vote as a question of long-term fiscal sustainability. The mayor said the city's fund balance is "there to protect the city and the city's financial position" and argued that one-time reserves are not an appropriate way to fund recurring operating expenses. Councilor Hart pushed back that it is the council's role to direct the mayor where to make cuts: "It is literally our job to tell the mayor where to make cuts in a way that it's actually not our job to tell the superintendent where to make cuts," Hart said. Several councilors and public speakers also urged creation of a single finance director shared by the city and the Board of Education to improve clarity and coordination.

Votes at a glance: the council adopted multiple ordinances and budgets during the special meeting by roll call. For each vote the roll call recorded four yes votes and one no vote (Councilor Hart cast the lone no in the recorded roll calls reported):

- Ordinance 05-12-25-01 (fixing the time when taxes laid on assessments of 10/01/2021 are due for fiscal year 2025-2026) ' adopted (4-1). - Ordinance 05-12-25-02 (appropriating $100,000 for the City Center District for fiscal year 2025-2026) ' adopted (4-1). - Ordinance 05-12-25-03 (fixing the time of taxes on the 10/01/2024 assessment list for fiscal year 2025-2026) ' adopted (4-1). - Ordinance 05-12-25-04 (city government budget: third reading adopted by roll call) ' adopted (4-1). The amount announced at the meeting was read as "$58,000,215,215,587"; the transcripted figure is garbled and the precise adopted general fund amount was not clearly specified in the meeting record provided. - Ordinance 05-12-25-05 (Board of Education budget for fiscal year 2025-2026) ' adopted (4-1). The Board of Education budget amount read at the meeting was $47,451,526.

Council discussion emphasized several recurring themes: the one-time nature of federal COVID-era funding (referred to in the meeting as ESSER or American Rescue Plan funds), the Board of Education's use of a "non-lapsing" fund to carry unspent balances, and the difficulty of replacing that money with sustainable revenue. Councilors described a multi-month budget process that began the prior June and urged both sides to increase transparency and coordination; several councilors noted prior efforts such as a joint budget task force.

The council also heard repeated public appeals stressing the human effects of the budget decisions: teachers cited classroom impacts, larger class sizes and the risk of losing staff. Council members responded with a mix of sympathy and insistence on fiscal restraint; several councilors said cuts or reallocation of positions would be necessary to balance recurring expenses to available revenues.

After roll call votes, the council adjourned the special meeting at 7:18 p.m.