Coventry council debates cuts as FY2026/27 budget would raise mil rate; residents urge protecting school funding

At a March 23 special budget meeting in the Town Hall Annex, the Coventry Town Council reviewed the proposed FY2026/27 spending plan and debated whether to make additional cuts before sending the budget to referendum.

Resident Patrick Wagstrom opened the public-comment period by urging the council to avoid pre‑referendum cuts to the Board of Education budget. "There is only one shot at getting the budget right, because if the budget gets voted down, it can only be further decreased, not increased," Wagstrom said, adding that Coventry Public Schools have been underfunded for years and rank 33 of 33 in per‑pupil spending in the town’s reference group. He noted that Greater Hartford Regional (GHR) was just named the best elementary school in Connecticut by the CT Association of Schools and credited the achievement to school staff.

Council discussion turned to line‑item questions and tradeoffs. Finance Director Cherie Trahan explained that a $219,000 contingency covers all labor groups and that last year investment income totaled about $437,000; she said her FY26/27 projection was conservative at $300,000 because interest income can be volatile. Trahan also explained grant allocations in the WPCA capital budget and confirmed a $160,000 grant anticipated to fund a CEPA study.

Chairwoman Lisa Thomas proposed removing a $39,500 allocation for a library portico from the FY26/27 capital budget and restoring $15,000 to library salaries and programming. She also pressed for adding a full‑time Maintainer I position in the DPW. Trahan said those changes would increase the budget by $71,000, moving the overall spending increase from 4.76% to 4.91 and raising the projected mil rate from 25.17 to 25.22.

Councilor Mark Wheaton said that a roughly 6% increase to the mil rate would be too large for many taxpayers and urged the council to target about a 3% increase instead, estimating that would require roughly $1.5 million in reductions spread across town government and the Board of Education. "If we want to get to 3% we need policy decisions and specific line items to cut," Wheaton said. Trahan cautioned that finding $1.5 million in reductions would likely require eliminating whole programs or services rather than small line‑item trims.

Councilor Matthew Kyer argued the council should present a reasonable budget to voters and let the referendum process provide the community’s guidance, saying preemptive, deep cuts before a public vote remove residents’ voice. Jon Hand described typical departmental budget review practices and said he had not seen obvious "fluff" to cut; Thomas asked Wheaton and other councilors to bring explicit reduction proposals to the next meeting on March 30.

Councilors also raised several accounting and clarity issues for staff to resolve: provide an FTE chart showing where positions are charged across funds, explain how lease‑purchase revenue and debt service are presented, and clarify grant revenues versus capital expenses in the budget book. Several councilors noted the budget book’s inconsistent labeling of FY26, FY27, or FY26/27 and asked staff to standardize those tables before the next review.

The meeting recessed into discussion of additional agenda items and adjourned at 9:22 PM; the council set follow‑up for its March 30 meeting and will check CNREF and the 1.5% fund before deciding on any funds transfers or further budget changes.