East Haven council authorizes multiple bond ordinances, including $11.2M settlement appropriation

The East Haven Town Council on Tuesday voted to adopt a slate of bond ordinances authorizing the town to issue debt for multiple capital budgets and a settlement payment, including an $11.2 million appropriation tied to litigation over a quarry.

The council moved at the conclusion of a lengthy public hearing and approved ordinances authorizing $1,520,191 for the 2022–23 capital budget, $3,330,321 for 2023–24, $1,944,200 for 2024–25 and an $11,200,000 appropriation to cover costs associated with a settlement and judgment related to claims against the town. Council members cast roll-call votes recorded in the meeting minutes and the motions carried.

Why it matters: The settlement appropriation will allow the town to pay a judgment now and seek to spread the cost over time through bond issuance, a step town officials said is intended to protect cash reserves and manage debt service. That approach drew sharp questions from residents who said they had insufficient access to the board of finance and wanted a line-by-line itemization of prior spending before the council reauthorized older bond authorizations.

Barbara, the finance director, told the hearing the ordinances do not immediately spend new bond proceeds but authorize the ability to bond later if necessary. “All you’re authorizing is the ability to go out to bond,” she said, explaining the town had used cash reserves for some projects and will replenish reserves when the market and advisors recommend issuance.

On the $11.2 million settlement item, the town attorney explained the administration had posted about $13.5 million in cash collateral and used an interest-bearing investment account while litigating; the account earned roughly $225,000 before funds were transferred to plaintiff counsel as part of the negotiated settlement. The town attorney described consulting bond counsel and municipal finance advisors and said bonding is a standard method to fund judgments without depleting reserves.

Members of the public pressed for more detail. A resident who identified themselves as living at 73 George Street said audits for 2024–25 were missing, accused officials of canceled board-of-finance meetings and asked specifically for itemized project accounts and a full accounting of ARPA and other funds. One public commenter said, “Somebody’s lying. Somebody’s cheating our town. Money’s missing,” and urged the council to pause approvals until transparency is provided.

Council members and staff responded by describing the capital budget development process—departments request projects, board of finance reviews and recommends, and the council adopts appropriation ordinances that bond counsel later frames in legal form. Staff said many prior bond authorizations were inherited from the prior administration and that when amortizations and paid-off issues are considered, total outstanding authorization is comparable to recent years.

What’s next: The ordinances authorize the administration to move forward with bond offerings when financial advisers and bond counsel recommend market timing; the council did not vote to issue specific bonds at the meeting. Residents and council members asked staff to provide additional documentation and to ensure board-of-finance minutes and audits are accessible.

(Reported from the public hearing and subsequent council roll-call votes on Jan. 6, 2026.)