Windsor Locks board approves revised FY27 operating, capital and TIF budgets after $1 million in proposed cuts

The Windsor Locks Board of Finance voted Thursday to send a revised fiscal‑year operating budget to the next referendum after approving a reduced operating package and two related budgets.

The board voted to propose a $65,286,003.50 FY26–27 operating budget and approved a capital plan reduced to $102,552 (a $25,000 reduction to the town‑side security project). The board also approved the TIF district budget at $465,000.98. The operating motion carried 4–2; capital and TIF motions passed unanimously.

Why it matters: The board is responding to a May referendum in which all three questions failed by roughly two‑to‑one margins. Members said they must present a clearer case to voters and supply a budget flyer showing where reductions were made while balancing the town’s legal and contractual obligations.

At the meeting the chair pressed department heads to deliver line‑by‑line reductions to finance by the stated deadlines so the board could finalize language for a second referendum. "We absolutely have to vote on a budget tonight," the chair said, arguing the board must set totals and let managers specify where to cut. That motion put a revised number on the table and cleared the way for the budget flyer.

Members debated both large and small reductions. One board member proposed a $100,000 cut to the police budget, several members advocated for additional reductions in the selectmen/general government lines, and a different member proposed a $600,000 reduction for the board of education budget. Smaller proposed changes discussed included $15,000 from the library budget and delaying or reducing a $55,000 HR position.

A key contention centered on Main Street TIF engineering funding and a Spring Street design project. The town engineer told the board that the $550,000 engineering allocation in the TIF budget is tied to the town’s ability to obtain a roughly $5 million state grant; cutting that engineering funding, the engineer warned, could jeopardize the grant and risk tens of millions in downstream funding commitments. "If we don't fund that $550,000, we can't use the grant money," the town engineer said, noting the potential loss could magnify to several million dollars given inflation and project scope.

Board members weighed the immediate tax‑rate relief that deeper cuts might provide against the risk of losing external grant funding and of creating service gaps. Finance staff emphasized that some costs are fixed (debt service, health insurance, mandatory services such as public health inspections) and therefore harder to trim without cutting core services.

The board recorded a series of formal votes before adjourning. The operating budget motion (to propose $65,286,003.50) passed 4–2. The capital budget motion (to adopt the reduced $102,552 figure) passed unanimously after the board agreed to a $25,000 reduction to the security project. The TIF budget motion (to set the TIF at $465,000.98) also passed unanimously.

What happens next: The board directed staff to compile the specific department cuts and to circulate them to directors and board members in advance of the next meeting so the budget flyer can be published on schedule. A second referendum was discussed as the likely next step, with members emphasizing the need to better explain what capital and TIF items do—and how, in many cases, they do not directly change a homeowner’s tax bill.

The meeting also included a public commenter who urged a joint, signed information statement to clarify misunderstandings about capital and TIF items, and brief board updates on an OSHA consultation and the status of outstanding audits.

The board adjourned at 10:17 p.m.