Milford Deserves Responsible Budgeting, Not Political Games

On Thursday night, as we were handed six budget amendments—with no prior warning—and expected to vote on them the same night, the mayor chose to personally attack me for doing my job: asking questions of the Finance Director and reviewing the amendments thoroughly. It was a chaotic and unprofessional display, and unfortunately, it wasn’t accidental—it was orchestrated.

The first question I asked never got a real answer: Why did we receive five “technical amendments” at 7pm, and a sixth later that night? The mayor’s team claimed it was “always done this way.” That’s not true. Last year, we received the amendments via email by 3:30pm the day of the vote. This year, the Finance Director had already sent them to the mayor and his chief of staff 2 days before the meeting. So why the delay? Politics—pure and simple.

This was orchestrated to force us to vote on something we didn’t fully understand—or to make us look bad as we were forced to call recess after recess just to review the information. That intent became crystal clear when the mayor pointed to the clock and said, “this meeting was supposed to start at 7pm, and you kept everyone waiting.” The delays were caused by their tactics, not ours. It was all part of the plan.

During a radio interview on April 29, the mayor said he thought taxes would be flat—confirming that he had already mapped out these changes weeks before our meeting. He waited to unveil them at the last possible moment to score political points and make it harder for us to review and respond.

This kind of political approach isn’t new. Years ago, after a meeting, a Republican alderman proudly said, “we made them look bad.” That mindset seems to drive Milford Republicans—not protecting taxpayers or schools, but scoring political points. A perfect example: in 2023, the current mayor (then an alderman) made a motion to fully fund the Board of Education and “save Harborside,” knowing the Democrats were about to propose a slightly smaller amount. He ultimately voted against the final motion to restore funding—but got the campaign slogan he wanted.

And in response to a post calling me a “self-professed finance person,” please know this: I hold an Accounting degree from UCONN, an MBA from the University of New Haven, and I have 32 years of experience in corporate finance and accounting. So believe me—I recognize budget tricks and gimmicks when I see them.

Here’s what we were handed the night of the vote:

1. A $1M revenue “increase” requiring a $1M raid on the rainy day fund, justified by vague references to past administrations.
2. $1.7M in revenue from a power plant contract still under negotiation, with no details shared. If the deal doesn’t go through, it would require another dip into reserves.
3. A $400K required pension fund increase.
4. A $150K decrease in heart and hypertension claims.
5. An $827K reduction in Education healthcare costs due to a newly negotiated stop loss insurance premium.
6. A $489K reduction in City healthcare costs for the same reason.

Items 3 and 4 passed unanimously. I voted against items 1, 2, 5, and 6. While item 5 passed narrowly, the rest failed. Now, Republicans are spinning it as “Democrats voted to raise your taxes.” That’s simply false. We voted against a set of rushed, irresponsible maneuvers that would drain city reserves for short-term political gain.

What they’re not telling you is that the mayor’s budget will slash the city’s healthcare reserve from $14.3 million in FY2024 to just $1.8 million by FY2026. That’s dangerously below the recommended $4.8 million—10% of expected claims. Even with the lower premiums negotiated by the Finance Director (which I commend), that reserve is already too low to justify further reductions.

We were accused of “playing politics” during the meeting. But the truth is, these amendments were politically motivated and fiscally reckless. If the goal is to lower the mill rate—and I agree that it should be—it must be done the right way: not by draining reserves or shortchanging our school system or playing a shell game with car taxes, but by making city government more efficient and expanding our tax base.

As a volunteer member of the Board of Aldermen, I take my responsibility seriously. Taxpayers deserve transparency, accountability, and smart decisions—not last-minute amendments and political theater. The mayor, as a full-time elected city official, should be focused on working with departments to find savings and attract new businesses to grow our grand list.

That’s the responsible way to manage a budget—and that’s what I will continue to fight for.