North Stonington Board of Finance approves 17.5 mill rate after debate over using reserves

The North Stonington Board of Finance voted 4–2 on June 3 to set the 2026–27 mill rate at 17.5 mills after a lengthy debate over whether to use undesignated fund balances and a recent state distribution to provide immediate tax relief.

The vote followed two hours of discussion about differing spreadsheet projections, the timing and reliability of a $1.4 million state distribution and how much of the town’s undesignated fund would remain after any transfer. Dan Smith, vice chair, moved to set the rate at 17.5; Lou Gingerella seconded the motion, which passed with two members — Gary Anino and Winona — opposed.

Why it matters: the decision shifts some money back to taxpayers in a revaluation year that would otherwise push many households to higher taxes. Board members debated whether to take a larger one-time reduction to 17.0 mills and risk a funding gap next year, or to preserve more reserves and aim for a smaller cut. The compromise was designed to give immediate relief while leaving funds available for contingencies and planned appropriations.

Board members and staff highlighted the accounting details at the center of the vote. Staff reported the town’s April tax collection rate at 98.4% and May at 98.8%, and provided undesignated-fund balances and iterative spreadsheet runs used to model outcomes. Winona (staff) told the board that taking $463,146 from the undesignated fund would achieve a 17.5 mill rate and leave the undesignated balance in the mid-to-high single-digit millions, with the board still above some policy thresholds depending on which forecast is used.

Residents urged a deeper cut. ‘‘Please help the taxpayers of this town to reduce at least the mill rate to where you can go,’’ said Brian Wrathman, a resident who addressed the board during public comment, arguing that families face higher gas and grocery costs.

Opponents warned of relying on one-time or special distributions. ‘‘It is not right for us to levy taxes from the taxpayers, be above our policy limits, and sit on that money until we choose to use it,’’ said Gary Anino, who argued in favor of returning funds. Other members cautioned that some of the recent state funding was a special distribution tied to casino revenue and might not recur, which could force the town to fill gaps in future budgets if reserves are drawn down too far.

Before the final motion, an earlier motion to lower the mill rate to 17.0 using approximately $930,146 from the undesignated fund failed on a 3–3 hand vote. After discussion and spreadsheet clarifications, the board adopted the 17.5 compromise and the chair said he would ‘‘send out the appropriate letters’’ and asked for a timetable to revisit audited numbers later in the summer or early fall.

The board also reviewed prior meeting minutes and received reports on likely appropriations and grant projects that could affect next year’s budget, including potential street grants and a roof project that may require appropriations to capture matching state funds. Members agreed to revisit the figures when in-house audited numbers are available, with staff estimating that firmer numbers might be available by late August or September.

The meeting concluded after additional public comments and routine business. The board adjourned at approximately 8:26 p.m.