741 Colonel Ledyard Highway

Ledyard, Connecticut 06339

TOWN OF LEDYARD

Finance Committee

Meeting Minutes

Chairman Gary St. Vil

Special Meeting

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

5:00 PM

Town Hall Annex Building - Hybrid

Format

In -Person Council Chambers,Town Hall Annex Building

Remote Participation: Information Noted Below

Join Zoom Meeting from your Computer, Smart Phone or Tablet:

https://ledyardct.zoom.us/j/84068773386?pwd=a4uvykwXsYtcbAbny7lYUBXVql1aVk.1

by Audio only: Telephone: +1 646 558 8656; Meeting ID: 840 6877 3386; Passcode:

070955

CALL TO ORDER

the Meeting was called to order by Committee Chairman Councilor Buhle at 5:00

p.m. at the Council Chambers Town Hall Annex Building.

Councilor Buhle welcomed all to the Hybrid Meeting. She stated for the Town

Council Finance Committee and members of the Public who were participating via

video conference that the remote meeting information was available on the Agenda

that was posted on the Town’s Website - Granicus-Legistar Meeting Portal.

II.

ROLL CALL

Jessica Buhle

Present:

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

Tim Ryan

Excused:

In addition, the following were present:

Ty (Earl) Lamb Town Councilor

Fred Allyn, IIMI ayor

Matthew Bonin Finance Director

Mike Cherry Resident

Jeff Eilenberger Resident

Roxanne Maher Administrative Assistant

III.

RESIDENTS & PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS

Mr. Mike Cherry, 5 Whippoorwill Drive, Gales Ferry, addressed the importance for

the residents to take advantage of the opportunity for the public to speak at meetings,

noting that it should be an exception when Public Committee is not provided at a

Special Meeting. He noted that the Finance Committee would be discussing the

Letter of Directive for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget this evening.

However, he stated that he would like to comment on last year’s Budget Letter of

Directive (fy 25/26) noting the following:

The Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget Letter of Directive was a good letter. The

Mayor and Finance Committee were the only ones that followed the provisions

laid out in the letter.

The Boad of Education did not pay attention to the Town Council’s Fiscal Year

2025/2026 Budget Letter of Directive. Mr. Cherry specifically noting Page 2 of the

letter stated:

“In working to provide a responsible and reasonable budget the Town

Council encourages you to look for reductions where possible in areas such

as contractual expenses through renegotiation, and corresponding decreases

in operating budgets where contractual increases exist. Also, the Town

Council asks that increases in specific line items and new expenditures be

explained/justified; and be offset with corresponding reductions in other line

items. An increase in revenue for any services provided should also be

considered”.

Mr. Cherry stated the directive, as noted above, was not followed by the Board of

Education which resulted in cutting the General Government even further. He stated

the General Government does not have anything left to cut from their budget. He

stated the town was foolish and did not look at how the budget was put together and

therefore, made inappropriate cuts, and reduced some expenses for key people to a

level lower than before the budget process began.

Mr. Cherry asked that if the Town Council writes a Letter of Directive for the Fiscal

Year 2026/2027 Budget that said that they were going to hold the line; that when it

comes time to approve a budget to forward to the residents, that they hold the line.

Mr. Cherry noted the lack of understanding regarding the relationship between the

budget, grand list, market value, appraised value, assessed value. He stated noted the

following data provided by the State of Connecticut’s Office of Policy &

Management (OPM) Municipal Fiscal Indicators Report:

· Ledyard’s Equalized Mil Rate was a little over 23 mils. Mr. Cherry stated after

seeing his property revaluation that his calculation was that Ledyard’s Equalized

Mil Rate was about 24.85 mils.

· Ledyard Equalized Net Grand List was about $2.2 billion.

Mr. Cherry noted the many comments on Social Media regarding the 2025 Property

Revaluations, and he thanked Councilor Bule and Councilor Garcia-Irizarry for

providing “Frequently Asked Questions and Answers”. He stated that he hoped

residents read them, more than they read the bottom line in the Assessors ‘Letter

regarding the Property Revaluations. Thank you.

VII. BUSINESS OF THE MEETING

MOTION to approve a Budget Letter of Directive to the Mayor and Board of Education for

the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget, as presented in the draft dated

November 24, 2025.

MOTION recommend the Town Council approve a Budget Letter of Directive to the

Mayor and Board of Education for the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Budget November 24, 2025 December 9, 2025 (as amended at tonight’s meeting

12/9/2025- see below)

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that she spent a significant amount of time

reviewing the boiler plate Letter of Directive noting that the second paragraph

included the following sentence:

“It is the Town Council’s intention to limit the mil rate increase to

_________ if possible.”

Councilor Buhle stated this sentence was irrelevant noting with the 2025

Property Revaluation that they would not be increasing the Mil Rate in the

coming budget year (fy 26/27).

Councilor Buhle continued by stating that she would like to provide some

amended language for discussion, noting that the red font was to strike out

language - blue bold italic font was to add in language ). She proceeded to

present the following:

· Second Paragraph:

It is the Town Council’s intention to limit the mil rate increase to _________ if

possible. With the implementation of the 2025 revaluation, it is the Town

Council’s intention to reduce the mill rate substantially, so residents experience

the full benefit of updated assessments while continuing to receive high-quality,

efficient services.

· Fifth Paragraph:

In working to provide a responsible and reasonable budget the Town Council

encourages you to look for reductions where possible in areas such as contractual

expenses through renegotiation, and corresponding decreases in operating budgets

where contractual increases exist. Also, the Town Council asks that increases in

specific line items and new expenditures be explained/justified; and be offset with

corresponding reductions in other line items. An increase in revenue for any services

provided should also be considered.

For this year’s budget submissions, the Town Council is requesting a clear

presentation of departmental needs and priorities. Each department should include

a narrative ranking its top ten budget priorities, with an explanation of the

operational significance of each item. Submissions should also describe the

department’s “excellence gap,” identifying what level of funding would allow the

department to operate at an excellent standard, compared with the amount actually

being requested, and explaining the practical differences between the two.

Departments are strongly encouraged to limit overall requested increases to below

four percent unless essential needs cannot be met within this guideline; any

request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling

justification. Increases in line items or new expenditures should be explained fully

and, when possible, offset by reductions in other areas.

Councilor Buhle addressed the importance to include the following:

(1).

For each department to include a narrative ranking its top ten budget priorities, with

an explanation of the operational significance of each item.

(2) Department’s Budget submissions should also describe the department’s “excellence

gap,” identifying what level of funding would allow the department to operate at an

excellent standard, compared to the amount actually being requested, and to explain

the practical differences between the two.

Councilor Buhle continued to comment on the pressure to flat-fund or cut the budget

wherever they could, noting that it was prudent for their taxpayers. However, she

stated that it was important for residents to understand the difference between what it

would look like for Departments to be fully funded to meet all of their goals, noting

as an example that the Police Department might feel better with two more police

officers; or the Library might need a second full-time Children’s Librarian. She stated

that she would like the residents to see different ideas that would make town services

and the experiences for their residents as best as possible. She noted that she was not

saying that they would do those things, however, she stated that putting an idea and a

number of what that would look like for the future goals for their town would be

helpful; and would give them an idea of the Department’s future priorities.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry expressed concerns about including a budget increase of

3% or 4%, or with providing an amount for a budget increase at all, because some

Departments may be able to operate with a 2% budget increase, while others may

require less or more of a budget increase. However, she stated that there were many

“unknowns” that could influence their upcoming budget; and that she did not want to

set Departments up for failure. She noted in the private industry that if they have

money remaining in their budget at the end of the year that the supervisors encourage

them to spend the money because if they do not use the money they would lose that

amount in the next year’s budget. Therefore, she stated that she wanted the town to

avoid that type of situation, because she wanted them to be cost conscience. She

stated that she thought that it was easier to cut the budget then to add to the budget.

Councilor Buhle stated based on salary increases and if they had step increases that

even without supplies such as gas, etc. that she believed most of the Department

Head budgets were going to come in with a 4% increase, noting that she believed

inflation was still at 4%.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry went on to address the Board of Education’s Budget,

stating that it was not clearcut. She stated with the Board of Education’s current

budget layout that it was hard to understand all of their expenses. She stated although

they could all read the Munis Report Printouts, that it takes a lot of time to read those

Reports because they have to look at every single code and which school the codes

were associated with. She noted the Board of Education’s Priority Tables noting that

the Green Table was new expenses that they included in the budget, the Yellow

Table was expenses that they would like to include in the budget, but could wait; and

the Red Table was expenses that they would not be able to do. She noted the

wrestling matts were a good example of the types of items on the Red Table that were

continuously, year after year listed on the Red Table. Therefore, she stated that she

was in-favor of including the following language:

“Budget submissions must identify the number of staff supported by

each grouped salary line; Board of Education budget must separate

group salary lines by school and delineate supplies, services, and

utilities by school where possible. Budget submissions must identify

any services provided that could be shared between other towns or

shared between the Board of Education and the Town to reduce

taxpayer expenses.”

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated in reviewing other town’s Board of Education’s

Budget presentations that she thought Colchester did the best job. She stated their

budget was broken out by each of the schools, the number of administrators at each

of the school, the number of teachers at each of the school, whether they were

full-time or part-time, school nurses at each of the school, librarians at each of the

school, office professionals at each of the school, greeters, etc. and each of their

salaries, for each of the non-classified salaried positions, along with listing out their

operational expenses such as the number of text books including the text books

subjects for each school, postage at each school, etc. She stated that based on the

format noted above, they would receive a clearer picture of what was in the Board of

Education’s Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget request. She stated this level of detail

would be a benefit for the residents and for the Board of Education. She stated that

the format would be detailed and transparent and would be a win-win for everyone.

She stated when residents look at the Board of Education budget they question where

their $40,462,242 was going. She stated by providing detail and transparency that

when the Board of Education asked for something everyone would be able to see if

there was a valid reason for the request. Mayor Allyn, III, addressed the format of the

Colchester’s budget, noting that he had sent it to the Town Council last year to

review; and he noted that he was pleased that Councilor Garcia-Irizarry reviewed the

budget and also liked Colchester’s budget format.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry went on to state that she believed the General Government

budget does a good job at delineating each of the positions, the operational costs,

including postage, etc.

Councilor Lamb noted Councilor Garcia-Irizary’s comments that the Board of

Education’s presentation was not clearcut. He stated as a former Board of Education

Member that he would agree with her comments, noting that unless someone was

involved, as he was, that the Board of Education was very confusing. He explained

that a lot of the Board of Education’s budget lines were broken out by code which

identified the school, noting that they could do sort by code to see each of the

schools. He stated the multiple lines were not duplicates, explaining that they may

have multiple lines for different segments noting as an example multiple

paraprofessionals budget lines for one school explaining that some may be for special

education, while other paraprofessionals were to help in the classroom.

Councilor Lamb continued by addressing the proposed Letter of Directive and the

discussion about whether they should include the following language:

“Departments are strongly encouraged to limit overall requested increases

to below four percent, unless essential needs cannot be met within this

guideline; any request above this threshold must be accompanied by a

clear and compelling justification..”

Councilor Lamb stated that the Board of Education was going to say “Whatever” to

the Directive and say: “…that everything they were presenting was essential

services”. He stated unless the Town Council does an analysis and says that the town

could only afford _____%; that the Board of Education was not going to listen to the

Budget Letter of Directive.

Mr. Mike Cherry, 5 Whippoorwill Drive, Gales Ferry, stated that a 4% increase

would equate to about 2 mils. However, he stated that this was based on assumptions

that he was not qualified to make, noting as an example changes to state funding,

veterans tax

relief, no additional unfunded mandates, etc., He stated they would have to look at all

the things that do not go into the Grand List; and all the things that supply money that

was not part of the Grand List to figure this out.

Councilor Buhle stated if they do not include a number for the budget increase, that

they could get budgets calling for a 7% increase. She commented on the importance

to make sure they were covering all the things that Departments needed; and that they

were adequately paying their employes. She stated if they were chopping things just

to get to below 3% then they could lose town employees and tenured teachers

because they were not paying them well, and that would lead to other problems. She

noted the sentence was worded as follows:

“Departments are strongly encouraged to limit overall requested increases

to below four percent, unless essential needs cannot be met within this

guideline; any request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear

and compelling justification..”

Councilor Buhle stated the first year they transition to the new budget format to

provide the level of detail the Town Council was looking for that it would be labor

intensive. However, she stated once the structure/budget format was set-up that each

year thereafter it should not be that difficult for the Board of Education to reproduce

the budget format. Therefore, she stated it was not unreasonable to set the standard

and the expectation for going forward. She noted as an example that it would take

one page to list the Total Number of Teachers at the Gallup Hill School, then break it

out to the Number of First Grade Teachers, Number of Second Grade Teachers and

so forth for each of the Schools. She noted for the Middle School and High School it

would be broken out by Math Teachers, English Teachers, etc.

Mr. Jeff Eilenberger, 2 Village Drive, Ledyard, noted the Colchester Budget format,

and he asked Finance Director Matthew Bonin about Ledyard’s Board of Education

being able to list out the individual salary lines in the budget. Finance Director

Matthew Bonin stated they would have to break the information out of the Munis

Financial System and then enter it into an Excel Spreadsheet. Councilor Buhle

explained that there were also some General Government Salary lines that were

grouped together such as the Police Department in the public facing printout, noting

that the induvial salaries were available in the more detailed budget backup data.

Councilor Buhle addressed the importance for the Ranking of Needs and Priorities;

and allowing Departments to go above and beyond by suggesting things that they

would have funded. She stated by using this format that Departments would be less

likely to put “wants” into their requested budget if they could still make themselves

heard on a “want” by putting those items on the “Excellence Gap List” or on their

List of what they would really like to have, noting that the Departments would have

to let the Town Council make those choices. She stated the proposed language

amendments to the draft Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 provided

Department Heads the opportunity to say: (1) These were their essential needs and

why; and (2) These were the things they really want, but that they understand that

they cannot have them this year.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry addressed the sharing of resources between the General

Government and the Board of Education to try to save money for the town. She

noted in reading through some past budgets that at one-time the General Government

and Board of Education shared the Human Resources Director. She also noted as an

example that the Board of Education mows some field and the Parks & Recreation

mows other fields, noting that she thought it may cost less if they had one contractor

handle all of fields. Councilor Buhle noted an example of shared resources was what

Public Works Director/Town Engineer Steve Masalin has done with providing

maintenance for the Town of Preston’s Fleet and sharing with Preston the Street

Sweeper. She stated that these types of things could be discussed during the Joint

Meetings between the Finance Committees of the Town Council and the Board of

Education. Mayor Allyn stated that there were opportunities they could discuss to

share resources and save money, noting that Public Works also does the maintenance

for the Board of Education’s Fleet.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry suggested the following language be added to the Letter of

Directive:

“Budget submissions must identify any services provided that could be

shared between other towns or shared between the Board of Education

and the Town to reduce taxpayer expenses.”

Mayor Allyn noted the sharing of resources that Councilor Garcia-Irizarry was

discussing was addressed in the both the: (1) Committee To Transform The Budget

Process- Final Report - October 3, 2016; and (2) Committee to Review Budget

Process- Final Report- October 31, 2023. He stated that for the Finance Committee’s

January 7, 2026 meeting he would provide what the General Government has

implemented; and what was identified for the Board of Education, that could be done.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated that she appreciated the Annual Budget Process

because the Finance Committee had the opportunity to meet with Departments and to

tailor their budgets to their needs.

Councilor Buhle stated that she would like to vote on each of the language

amendments separately. She called for a Vote on the proposed language amendments

as noted below:

v MOTION to amend the Letter Budget of Directive for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 as

follows: