Board advances public-safety budgets to city council as revaluation shifts tax burden onto homeowners

The Torrington Board of Public Safety voted to advance multiple public-safety budgets to the city council at a special budget meeting, saying a recent property revaluation has shifted the tax burden toward homeowners and forced deep cuts or level funding across departments.

The board's budget subcommittee told the meeting that residential property values rose roughly 90%–110% in the revaluation performed Oct. 1, 2024, while commercial values rose about 40%. The mismatch, officials said, means the city faces a tax-shift that could increase residential property tax bills by roughly 25%–42% if adjustments are not made by the council.

The board advanced the proposed budgets for public safety miscellaneous, the fire department, volunteer fire organizations, the police department, animal control, traffic and emergency management to the city council for approval. The moves do not constitute final approvals; the city council will review the packages and set final appropriations.

Why it matters: department leaders said the revaluation left the city with little room to raise revenue without producing outsized effects on homeowners. Fire and police chiefs told the board they had already pared programs and equipment plans to avoid layoffs while meeting safety obligations.

The fire department initially proposed a roughly $7.2 million operating budget for FY 2025–26 and returned with a reduced proposal of about $6.7 million after the subcommittee asked for cuts. Chief Borden told the board those reductions required cutting training programs and other line items while preserving staffing where possible. "We had to give up a lot of our programs ... it was a very, very difficult budget year for us," Borden said.

Borden and other staff outlined the most significant line items affected: roughly $535,000 in reductions that include a $227,915 cut from salary lines (equivalent to about 2.5 full-time positions over the year), reductions in capital outlay and vehicle-replacement funding, and trimmed training and equipment budgets. The board retained an $800,000 annual vehicle-replacement contribution rather than the department's earlier plan to increase that contribution toward $1 million.

The board and department leaders discussed the downstream effects of cuts to training, protective gear and vehicle replacement. Borden said a set of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) can cost about $10,000 each and that the department runs roughly 50 such packs; SCBA and turnout gear also have service-life expectations. "If we don't keep putting money in, we'll be way behind," Borden said.

Police leadership similarly saw most of its proposed increase driven by contract pay raises. The deputy police chief told the board that roughly $600,000–$630,000 of the police budget change represents payroll increases, and the department made cuts largely in overtime, some equipment and training funding to meet the subcommittee's direction.

Board members said they understand the operational impacts but emphasized the revaluation forced difficult choices. Commissioner McElroy said the city is working on East Side protection and will continue negotiations over property and facility options but that the process will require legal steps.

Votes at a glance (all motions carried 4–0 unless noted): - Accept and advance the proposed public safety miscellaneous budget for FY25–26 to the city council — approved (yes:4, no:0). - Accept and advance the proposed Fire Department FY25–26 budget (reduced from ~$7.2M to ~$6.7M) — approved (yes:4, no:0). - Accept and advance the proposed Volunteers budget for FY25–26 — approved (yes:4, no:0). - Accept and advance the proposed Police Department FY25–26 budget — approved (yes:4, no:0). - Accept and advance the proposed Animal Control budget for FY25–26 — approved (yes:4, no:0). - Accept and advance the proposed Traffic Division budget for FY25–26 — approved (yes:4, no:0). - Accept and advance the proposed Emergency Management budget for FY25–26 — approved (yes:4, no:0).

Department leaders said they will return to the board and to the city council with line-item detail as the council considers final appropriations. The board's decision to advance the budgets does not change staffing authorizations; any personnel changes tied to funding will be finalized only after council action.