Avon council authorizes rebuttal after state denies growth levy appeal

Avon — The Avon Town Council voted on Jan. 8 to authorize a rebuttal to the Department of Local Government Finance after the agency denied the town’s excess growth levy appeal, a decision town staff said was based on the DLGF’s finding that Avon had a “sufficient fund balance.”

Town manager Ryan Cannon told the council the denial notice arrived Dec. 31 and said the majority of the appeal sought levy relief to fund recurring public‑safety costs, including hiring three police officers. Cannon said staff prepared a narrower rebuttal focused on ongoing expenses and recommended rejecting the DLGF’s 1782 determination so the town could ask the agency to reconsider a reduced request of $505,000 (down from an earlier $825,000 request). “The reason they denied the appeal was simply because they said we had too much cash in the bank,” Cannon said, noting large interest earnings in 2025 increased the town’s fund balance temporarily.

Why it matters: The levy appeal would have increased the town’s allowable tax levy to fund positions and other recurring costs. Cannon and legal counsel argued the DLGF’s review applied a subjective second test in the statute — whether the excess levy is reasonably necessary for essential services — more stringently this cycle, and that the council, not state administrators, should decide hiring and service levels.

What the council did: After discussion the council adopted Resolution 2026‑03 authorizing the town to reject the DLGF’s 1782 determination and to submit the targeted rebuttal and request for reconsideration. The resolution shortens the town’s ask to $505,000 and directs staff to file the rebuttal before the Jan. 14 deadline.

Details and context: Cannon said the DLGF carved out most of the annexation claim but granted a small portion — approximately $11,000 in the current year and $7,000 next year — after reviewing revenue offsets. He stressed the difference between one‑time cash and recurring expenditures: recent investment returns and underspent vacancies had raised the fund balance, but those are not sustainable revenue sources for hiring. Town legal counsel explained the statutory two‑part test for a 3‑year growth excess levy: a formulaic growth calculation and a discretionary determination of necessity, and said DLGF appears to be emphasizing the latter more now.

Next steps: Staff said it would compile the rebuttal package and submit it immediately upon clerk confirmation; the town expects a response from DLGF within about a week of submission. The council’s vote authorized that approach and gave staff direction on the narrower request.

Outcome: Resolution 2026‑03 passed on a roll‑call vote.