Killingly budget plan would increase taxes 15.5% for average homeowner
Killingly — The average homeowner here could see their taxes increase by more than 15% next year under the latest 2025-26 budget proposal, according to local officials.
The $74.4 million spending proposal was presented to the Town Council and the public on Saturday, kicking off the budget season.
Over the next week, the council will review the budget, which calls for a $3.1 million increase in spending. The council is tentatively scheduled to meet Monday to discuss the proposal ahead of a joint review of the Board of Education's operating budget on Tuesday.
The proposed budget would raise the tax rate from 20.32 mills to 23.47. For the average homeowner, Town Manager Mary Calorio said Friday that the 3.15 mill increase would translate to a 15.5% rise in taxes.
According to Calorio, taxes on a home with a market value of $360,000 would go up $790, or 15.5%. A home with a market value of $500,000 would see a tax increase of $1,100, also 15.5%, Calorio said.
The proposal includes a $2.35 million, or 4.97%, increase in school spending, which brings the district's budget up from $47.3 million to $49.7 million.
The Board of Education's budget proposal was approved in a 5-2 vote with board members Kelly Martin and Kyle Napierata voting opposed. According to a recording of the meeting minutes, Martin and Napierata were concerned about the impact increased education spending would have on taxpayers.
Other cost drivers include a $667,000 increase in general government operational costs, a $156,000 increase in the human services subsidy and Civic and Cultural Event Subsidies budgets, a $620,000 increase in debt service, a $124,000 hike in the student transportation capital non-recurring fund, and a $1.25 million for capital projects.
The budget proposal also calls for reducing the town's fund balance utilization by $250,000 next year, pushing the cost onto taxpayers.
After other revenue sources are factored in, the town would need to raise $5.18 million more in tax revenue in 2025-26 compared to the current year, under the proposal.
A public hearing on the budget is scheduled for Thursday, April 10, in the Killingly High School auditorium. Residents can provide public comment in person or by email, at budgetcomment@killinglyct.gov. Statements must include the commenter's name and home address.
Following the public hearing, the council must act on the budget within 10 days and forward the proposal to the Annual Town Meeting. That meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 5, in the Killingly High School auditorium. The meeting must be adjourned to a townwide, all-day referendum, which is scheduled for May 13.
The town meetings and referendums will continue every two weeks, excluding holidays, until voters approve a budget.
'The budget process offers us the opportunity to maximize the use of taxpayer dollars, plan for the future, implement the priorities of the Town Council and the services desired by the public,' Calorio said in a message to the town. 'Our outlook is always forward-leaning and collaborative, as we strive to provide the best service in the most efficient and affordable way.'
a.cross@theday.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
School choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families
Originally developed as a tool to help Black children attend better schools, school voucher programs now serve a different purpose. (Drazen via Getty Images) School voucher programs that allow families to use public funds to pay tuition to attend private schools have become increasingly popular. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently operate voucher programs. In addition, 15 states have universal private school choice programs that offer vouchers, education savings accounts and tax credit scholarships. Indiana's new state budget funds universal vouchers in the second year. More states are considering school choice and voucher programs as the Trump administration advocates for widespread adoption. School vouchers have a long history in the U.S. The first vouchers were offered in the 1800s to help children in sparsely populated towns in rural Vermont and Maine attend classes in public and private schools in nearby districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which justices ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional, segregationists used vouchers to avoid school integration. More recently, school voucher programs have been pitched as a tool to provide children from low-income families with quality education options. As a scholar who specializes in education policy, law and politics, I can share how current policies have strayed from efforts to support low-income Black children. Research from education history scholars shows that more recent support for school choice was not anchored in an agenda to privatize public schools but rooted in a mission to support Black students. Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into subsidies for middle-class families to send their children to private and parochial schools. School choice policies have also expanded to include education savings account programs and vouchers funded by tax credit donations. Vouchers can redirect money from public schools, many of which are serving Black students. States looking to add or expand school choice and voucher programs have adopted language from civil rights activists pushing for equal access to quality education for all children. For example, they contend that school choice is a civil right all families and students should have as U.S. citizens. But school voucher programs can exclude Black students and harm public schools serving Black students in a host of ways, research shows. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Since the Brown v. Board ruling, school voucher programs have been linked to racial segregation. These programs were at times used to circumvent integration efforts: They allowed white families to transfer their children out of diverse public schools into private schools. In fact, school voucher programs tend to exacerbate both racial and economic segregation, a trend that continues today. For example, private schools that receive voucher funding are not always required to adopt the same antidiscrimination policies as public schools. School voucher programs can also negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students. As some of the best and brightest students leave to attend private or parochial ones, public schools in communities serving Black students often face declining enrollments and reduced resources. In cities such as Macon, Georgia, families say that majority Black schools lack resources because so many families use the state's voucher-style program to attend mostly white private schools. Moreover, the cost of attending a private or parochial school can be so expensive that even with a school voucher, Black families still struggle to afford the cost of sending children to these schools. Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., shows that voucher programs in Ohio result in majority Black school systems such as the Cleveland Metropolitan School District losing millions in education funding. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities across the U.S. with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Another example is the Marion County School District, a South Carolina system where about 77% of students are Black. Marion County is in the heart of the region of the state known as the 'Corridor of Shame,' known for its inadequate funding and its levels of poor student achievement. The 17 counties along the corridor are predominantly minority communities, with high poverty rates and poor public school funding because of the area's low tax base due to a lack of industry. On average, South Carolina school districts spent an estimated US$18,842 per student during the 2024-25 school year. In Marion County, per-student funding was $16,463 during the 2024-2025 school year. By comparison, in Charleston County, the most affluent in the state, per-student funding was more than $26,000. Rather than focus on school choice and voucher programs that take money away from public schools serving Black students, I argue that policymakers should address systemic inequities in education to ensure that all students have access to a quality education. Establishing restrictions on the use of funds and requiring preferences for low-income Black students could help direct school voucher policies back toward their intent. It would also be beneficial to expand and enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination against Black students. These measures would help ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
CBS News
11 hours ago
- CBS News
Bill banning teaching antisemitism vetoed by Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, who says it's actually an attack on educators
Phoenix — Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would have banned teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and exposed educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. The proposal would have prohibited teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would have barred public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Educators would have personally been responsible for covering the costs of damages in lawsuits for violating the rules. Hobbs, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the bill, also known as the "Antisemitism in Education Act," wasn't about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. "It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits," she said in a statement. "Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff." Hobbs described antisemitism as a very troubling issue in the U.S., but said students and parents can go through the state's Board of Education to report antisemitism. The measure cleared the Legislature last week on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with "unlawful discrimination" to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, called the veto "disgraceful," saying on the social media platform X that the legislation was meant to keep "egregious and blatant antisemitic content" out of the classroom. "To suggest that it threatened the speech of most Arizona teachers is disingenuous at best," he added. Opponents said the bill aimed to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opened up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would have been able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. Last week, Lori Shepherd, executive director of Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, wrote in a letter to Hobbs that if the bill were approved it would threaten teachers' ability to provide students with a full account of the Holocaust. Under the bill, "those discussions could be deemed 'antisemitic' depending on how a single phrase is interpreted, regardless of intent or context," she said. The bill would have created a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a second offense to a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate and a third offense to a revocation of the certificate. At colleges and universities, violators would have faced a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would have required colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. The Anti-Defamation League reported that the U.S. saw the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2024 since the organization started keeping records 46 years earlier, CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO-TV noted. Thirteen organizations, including the Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, signed and sent a letter on Friday to Gov. Hobbs, asking her to veto the bill, KPHO added. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.
16 hours ago
Arizona governor vetoes bill banning teaching antisemitism, calls it an attack on educators
PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would have banned teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and exposed educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. The proposal would have prohibited teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would have barred public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Educators would have personally been responsible for covering the costs of damages in lawsuits for violating the rules. Hobbs, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the bill was not about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits," she said in a statement. "Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff." Hobbs described antisemitism as a very troubling issue in the U.S., but said students and parents can go through the state's Board of Education to report antisemitism. The measure cleared the Legislature last week on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with 'unlawful discrimination' to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, called the veto 'disgraceful,' saying on the social media platform X that the legislation was meant to keep 'egregious and blatant antisemitic content' out of the classroom. 'To suggest that it threatened the speech of most Arizona teachers is disingenuous at best,' he added. Opponents said the bill aimed to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opened up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would have been able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. Last week, Lori Shepherd, executive director of Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, wrote in a letter to Hobbs that if the bill were approved it would threaten teachers' ability to provide students with a full account of the holocaust. Under the bill, 'those discussions could be deemed 'antisemitic' depending on how a single phrase is interpreted, regardless of intent or context,' she said. The bill would have created a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a second offense to a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate and a third offense to a revocation of the certificate. At colleges and universities, violators would have faced a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would have required colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.
