Sam Gurwitt photo
Hamden Mayor Curt Leng at a recent “unity march.”
Hamden Mayor Curt Leng has vetoed the town council’s budget for the second year in a row.
He did so Friday evening, on the last day of the 15-day window he had to sign or veto the budget. Leng notified council members that he had done so because of the council budget’s tax increase and because of its cuts to police, education, and bulk trash pickup.
In the wee hours of the morning of June 5, the Legislative Council voted to pass its $248,928,679 budget after a month of tough negotiations and cuts.
The town’s current mill rate is 48.86. The council’s budget would raise taxes by 6.4 percent, bringing the mill rate to 51.98 mills. One mill represents $1 of taxes per $1,000 of assessed property value.
In the budget Leng proposed in April, the suggested mill rate was 51.86 — only .12 mills lower than the council’s mill rate. In an email to the council, Leng wrote that he thought the town could manage to reduce the mill rate by another .5 mills.
If the veto stands, Leng’s proposed mill rate will go into effect. This means that, though the budget Leng proposed in April would have raised taxes by only .98 mills from its current rate, Leng’s veto has very little effect on the mill rate increase.
Leng’s original budget also included a $7 million debt restructure that would have reduced the budget total by $7 million. The council, at the urging of its financial advisers, voted to remove the restructure from the budget.
The town charter stipulates that mayoral vetoes do not apply to the debt service. That means that even if the mayor’s budget goes into effect, it will not include the restructure.
In his email, which council members received at around 7:40 p.m. Friday, Leng wrote that he took issue with some of the reductions the council made.
“A strategy that reduces services, while charging you more for less, is not a recipe that leads to a stronger, safer Hamden our neighbors are counting on us to provide for them,” he wrote. If the veto is sustained, he said, he would work with the council to submit a budget amendment package that would take into account many of the changes the council made.
He outlined four specific reasons he had decided on the veto. The first point was the mill rate, though he acknowledged that his veto would not have much of an effect.
Second, he wrote that he does not like cuts the council made to public safety. The council eliminated 13 positions in the police department, most of them vacant.
The cuts, he wrote, would mean eliminating neighborhood walking beats and reducing bicycle patrols. They would also bring the staffing level in the department to the same level as the 1970s, he wrote.
He highlighted cuts the council made to the Board of Education budget. The council voted to cut $1.36 million from the school board’s budget, while also counting $700,000 of board revenue as revenue for the town. Those cuts will end up forcing the board to cut equity and arts programming, Leng wrote. The board is currently discussing how to reduce its budget, and board members have been adamant that they do not want to make cuts to equity initiatives.
Finally, he highlighted curbside bulk trash pickup, which the council voted to eliminate to save money in the Public Works budget. “Elimination of this service, in a year where we are asking our residents to pay more is wrong,” he wrote.
While Leng’s veto, if sustained, would reinstate police officer positions, BOE funding, and bulk trash pickup, it also counts on a wide array of revenue projections that many say are unlikely.
Throughout the budget process, council members slashed the mayor’s revenue projections in order to bring them closer to what they believe is realistic. Many of the revenues in Leng’s budget were higher than department heads had predicted. For instance, Tax Collector Kathleen Flynn had predicted that back taxes would total $1.9 million, based on the average of the last three years. Leng’s budget anticipated $2.9 million. Read more about that here.
Leng was criticized for what some called “inflated” revenue projections last year. He ended up vetoing the council’s 2019 – 2020 budget, and his budget went into effect. Before the pandemic hit, Finance Director Curtis Eatman said the budget was running a 2 – 3 percent projected deficit.
The deficit in the current fiscal year is now projected to be somewhere between $8 and $10 million.
Last year when Leng vetoed the council’s budget, the council did not have the two-thirds necessary to override his veto. This year, however, it likely will. Both Democratic and Republican leadership said they would vote to override the veto.
“I think the council budget is the better budget,” said Council President Mick McGarry. He said he would vote to override Leng’s veto. “I understand some of the mayor’s concerns and I appreciate them, but I do think overall the council’s budget makes more cuts, which I think is necessary given the fiscal crisis the town is in.”
Councilwoman Marjorie Bonadies, the council’s Republican whip, said she would also vote to override Leng’s veto. She said Leng’s budget has unrealistic revenues, and does not make the cuts necessary to get the town through the next fiscal year.
Councilman Austin Cesare, who voted against the budget when the council passed it, said he is not yet sure how he will vote.
“I was opposed to the council budget (voted no) and have some concerns with the mayor’s revenue estimates,” he wrote to the Independent. “I want to see some compromises made. I’m on the fence at this time. I am looking forward to a debate on our priorities.”
So to summarize, the Mayor's budget:
As complete and utter a failure of leadership as I've ever experienced up close. An override should be an easy and swift call.