Residents urge New Britain council to prioritize school funding, question budget choices

Public commenters at the New Britain Common Council’s May 27 meeting urged the council to prioritize school funding and to exercise greater transparency before reducing education services.

Desiree Costa, who identified herself as living at 193 Amherst Street, told the council she had raced from a family event to speak and asked the council to “revisit the amended April 17 budget proposal” before placing “the burden of austerity onto students, educators, and families.” She said it would be inconsistent for the council to approve new administrative positions while asking educators to accept cuts: “If this council is prepared to fund new administrative positions elsewhere in the city government during a challenging economic period … then the argument that the economy is too difficult to properly fund education becomes inconsistent.”

John Kristoffic, a frequent public commenter, congratulated the city on recent state funding for schools and on the Ellen Street project but also raised a separate fiscal concern, saying a recent $30,750,000 building sale involved a private family office and alleging the property received a roughly $50,000-a-year tax break; he asked whether the new owners had reached out to neighbors.

Paul Canzer, another resident, urged patience with an ongoing investigation, saying the probe and social-media attention had made it harder to recruit applicants for positions such as finance director.

Council members acknowledged the concerns while describing political and fiscal constraints. Alderwoman Ortiz Luna said she campaigned on increasing education funding and called it a priority, but added that “not every resident has children that go to school” and that the city faces limits on raising taxes; she said restoring more than a decade of underfunding would be incremental. Separately, speakers on the dais said an amendment to add more education funding had been offered during budget consideration but was defeated.

The public comments period repeatedly asked whether council members had met with the superintendent or the board of education to pursue evidence-based inquiries rather than relying on rhetoric; speakers pressed the council for direct engagement and collaboration. The council said it had provided the board with budget certainty and noted a larger-than-usual state funding increase and an uptick in the municipal base revenue that could repeat in future years.

The meeting moved on to routine business after public comment closed; no formal budget reversal or immediate policy change was announced during the session.

Ending: The council took up its regular agenda after public comment and did not vote to reopen the April 17 budget during the May 27 meeting.