By Elizabeth Barhydt
Greenwich’s 2025–26 municipal budget process, currently under review by our elected Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) volunteer leaders, has resulted in walkouts, scheduled police presence at Town Hall, and a backup meeting date in case of disruption. The proposed budget exceeds $500 million, and the immediate discussion centers around spending increases that could lead to either a 3% or 6% rise in the town’s mill rate. Residents and officials have raised concerns about the long-term financial impact of these decisions.
Security in Place as Pressure Mounts
BET members have received hundreds of emails, many initiated by parent advocacy groups responding to the proposed $4.1 million reduction to the Board of Education’s requested increase. The BET is not voting on the mill rate itself this week but on the spending plan that will determine future tax calculations. The mill rate will be set later to generate the revenue needed to meet the approved budget.
BET Chair Harry Fisher stated, “We build the budget first. Then we set the mill rate to meet it.” The meeting on Thursday will include security measures, and a third session is scheduled for Friday if disruptions prevent a vote.
Impact on Taxpayers: 3% vs. 6%
A 1% mill rate increase equals approximately $4.2 million in new, recurring annual revenue for the town, according to former BET Chair Mike Mason. A 6% increase would equate to approximately $25 million in additional annual obligations. These increases become permanent, forming the base for future budgets.
For a homeowner currently paying $9,000 in property taxes, a 3% annual increase would result in a tax bill of approximately $11,800 after ten years. A 6% annual increase would bring the bill to over $16,100 in the same period. The cumulative ten-year difference between the two is about $24,000. On a $2 million property, the impact would double. Applying compounding interest at 3%, ten years of $25 million in additional annual spending would total $286.6 million in additional spending even if everything else stays flat.
It is just math says Mason.
Substitute Teacher Costs Drive Debate
The proposed $4.1 million reduction to the schools’ $12 million requested increase has been described in public commentary as a cut. Parent Teacher Advisory Council (PTAC) emails warned of a negative impact on education quality. In response, parent Brian Raney stated in a widely released letter, “This is a reduced increase. It’s not a cut. And PTAC has no business turning into a political action committee.”
The substitute teacher budget comprises over half of the $4.1 million under review. The current Board of Education budget includes $1.95 million for substitute teachers, up from $1.07 million the previous year—an $882,930 increase. According to information shared during budget hearings, substitute staffing is required frequently due to teacher absenteeism. On a single day in December, the district needed 112 substitutes.
Data shows that by January, hundreds of teachers had already taken eight or more sick days. BET members noted that absenteeism tends to increase adjacent to scheduled vacations voicing concerns that Greenwich teachers are among the highest paid in the state. Taxpayers are paying top dollar for full-time talent and still covering the cost of replacements at twice the frequency of most other towns in Connecticut.
Differentiating Cost Structures
BET members noted that not all costs are fully visible in the Board of Education’s budget. Expenses such as health care, pensions, and administrative services like human resources are included in the town’s fixed charges. These indirect costs remain taxpayer obligations. This year, health care premiums for town employees have increased by 11%.
Town departments such as Public Works and Public Safety have also been discussed during budget deliberations. According to First Selectman Fred Camillo, “The DPW came in under budget guidelines. Now they’re being forced to contemplate winter operations without overtime funding.” He added, “Thirty years ago, Greenwich had 175 police officers. Today we have 152—despite the rise in cybercrime, financial fraud, and school safety demands.” Camillo also warned against reductions at the town-run Nathaniel Witherell nursing home, stating, “If we cut now, we risk losing our star rating. That makes recruitment harder and costs go up.”
Camillo emphasized that while efficiencies could be identified in some departments, particularly in administrative and educational overhead, police and fire departments are already operating with disciplined budgets and cannot reasonably absorb further cuts.
Budget Process Breakdown
BET Chair Harry Fisher stated that he has attempted to collaborate with his Republican colleagues, but been thwarted. He and Leslie Tarkington, Chair of the Budget Committee, requested meetings and input with their Republican colleagues prior to the Budget Committee Decision Day in March, but the request was ignored. Then again Fisher requested full caucus meetings early last week, but again was thwarted. The Republican caucus finally met on Friday the 28th. New proposals were presented without prior notice. An all-or-nothing position, which risked the possibility of no budget being passed resulted.
Without an approved budget, the previous year’s budget would automatically be reinstated, but without capital spending. “That means no road paving, no school maintenance, no drainage repairs, no sewer pump station work,” Fisher said.
Democratic members have similarly thwarted his attempts to compromise claiming that the proposed reductions will negatively affect essential services. One Democratic official said, “They’re weaponizing numbers to justify cuts that will harm education and town services.”
Republican members contend that their proposals reflect an effort to moderate the rate of increase rather than implement cuts from current spending levels.
Institutional Knowledge and Compounding Risk
Former BET Chair Mike Mason noted a loss of institutional knowledge on the board. “The BET used to be boring,” he said. “Now it’s being politicized, and the implications of decisions aren’t always fully understood.”
Mason estimates that this year’s proposed spending includes $20 million in new obligations. If these are carried forward annually without adjustment, the total cost would reach $200 million over a decade—before accounting for compounding interest. “People think they’re approving a small bump. What they’re doing is changing the financial trajectory of the town,” he said.
Fisher and Republican BET members aim to limit the mill rate increase to under 4%, which would require reducing over $10 million from requested budget increases. Democratic members have advocated for restoring the full proposed education increase and adding additional expenditures, which would likely push the mill rate increase closer to 6%.
Outlook
The BET will vote on the proposed budget on Thursday. If the meeting is disrupted, a session is scheduled for Friday. Security will be in place. “We’ve never had a violent incident in Greenwich,” Fisher said. “And I don’t expect one now.”
According to a letter from a longtime resident read into the public record, “After ten years of compounding increases, I won’t be able to stay in my home.” The outcome of the vote will determine the spending baseline that will guide Greenwich’s financial path for years to come. Once finalized, the Board of Estimate and Taxation, with input from the Town Assessor will calculate the mill rate necessary to raise the approved amount.
The ongoing budget discussions highlight the financial tradeoffs between immediate service levels and long-term tax burdens. While some departments are presenting budget increases tied to contractual and structural costs, others—particularly the Board of Education—face scrutiny over rising discretionary expenditures such as substitute teaching coverage. The results of Thursday’s vote will establish the fiscal course for Greenwich and its 22,000 homeowners over the next decade.
