By Elizabeth Barhydt
A Record Budget, A Split Vote
On April 4, 2025, the Greenwich Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) approved a $503.5 million municipal budget—the largest in town history. The 7-6 vote, decided by Republican Chair Harry Fisher, brought an end to a three-day public hearing marked by a packed Town Hall, political tension, and disagreement over a symbolically charged reduction to the Board of Education’s request.
The approved budget includes a 2.81% increase in the mill rate, bringing it to 12.041 for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. The vote avoided a budgetary default that would have frozen capital investments and reverted the town to the current year’s spending levels.
A $4 Million Reduction Sparks a Broader Fight
The most contentious issue was a $4,048,621 reduction to the school district’s proposed increase. According to the town’s budget exhibits, the Board of Education’s operating budget still increased year over year by approximately $5.76 million, from $192.6 million to $198.4 million, while total departmental costs rose to $242.4 million from $234.7 million.
Democrats on the BET framed the reduction as a direct assault on public education. In a letter submitted after the vote, all six Democratic members described the process as “a betrayal of the community’s trust,” claiming the cut jeopardized contractual salary obligations and essential services.
During the public session, BET Democrat David Weisbrod described the move as “dangerous and radical.” Fellow member Matt DesChamps warned it would eliminate up to 45 positions. Superintendent Dr. Toni Jones had previously suggested that a $4 million cut could not be absorbed without staffing impacts.
Republican Rationale: Absenteeism, Enrollment, and Substitutes
Republicans emphasized financial discipline. BET member Lucia Jansen cited an 82% increase, amounting to a total of almost two million dollars, in substitute teacher costs, attributing it to elevated absenteeism, especially before and after holidays. “We are paying full salaries and again for 112 substitutes in a single day,” she said. Fellow Republican Karen Fassuliotis pointed to enrollment trends: “There are 480 fewer students than in 2019, yet staffing has increased.”
In an interview with the Greenwich Sentinel, BET Chair Harry Fisher explained that Republicans had offered a compromise: a $2 million reduction instead of $ 4 million—if Democrats agreed to support the budget. “I had my caucus on board,” Fisher said. “But when they dug in at $1 million, we stuck with four.” The Democrats declined the offer.
Fisher characterized the Democratic strategy as more political than procedural. “Each member spoke from lengthy prepared remarks,” he said. “It was posturing.”
Compromise Deferred, Consequences Anticipated
The budget vote passed without bipartisan support. As a result, Democratic BET members argued that Republicans will bear full responsibility for any downstream effects. But in a follow-up conversation, Fisher pushed back on claims that Republicans acted unilaterally. “There’s money in the school budget that never gets discussed,” he said, referencing the Board of Education’s ability to cover last year’s unexpected $1 million increase in substitute costs without returning to the BET for additional funds.
The substitute teacher line has become a proxy for competing narratives. According to Fisher, it demonstrates budget flexibility. According to Democrats, it reflects unpredictable realities that merit more—not less—support.
A Matter of Debt and Discipline
The friction extended to long-term capital strategy. Democrats proposed extending school construction bond maturities from five to 20 years, a practice common in other Connecticut municipalities. “Constraint leads to suboptimal outcomes,” said BET Democrat Elliot Alchek. Republicans rejected the proposal, arguing that longer amortization terms would increase long-run interest payments and weaken fiscal discipline. “Five-year bonding is the business model that keeps Greenwich strong,” Fisher said. The motion failed in a 6–6 tie.
The Nursing Home and Capital Projects
The BET also voted to reduce the town’s contribution to Nathaniel Witherell, the town-owned nursing home. In prior years, the facility operated at a loss of $3.4 million, which has now dropped to $1.6 million. Republicans viewed this as evidence of operational progress; Democrats argued the reduced support could imperil future sustainability.
The board authorized $32.2 million in bonding for general capital improvements and $10.8 million for sewer upgrades. A proposal to transfer $1 million from the capital non-recurring fund—a move supported by Democrats—failed on a 6-6 tie vote.
What the Numbers Show
According to official projections, the total operating cost—including fixed charges—will grow 3.76%, reaching nearly $460 million. The total amount to be financed stands at $520.99 million, up 3.93% from last year. Of that, $438.6 million will come from property taxes—a 4.02% increase over the previous year.
Greenwich’s education budget, even after the reduction, remains one of the highest per-student expenditures in the region. And the town’s mill rate remains among the lowest in the state.
A Governance Dispute Disguised as a Budget Battle
In interviews and statements, both parties have emphasized principles: Democrats say the budget process should reflect community values and trust in institutions. Republicans describe it as an exercise in financial discipline grounded in long-term sustainability.
Fisher acknowledged that “morale” among teachers is a real concern—but argued that addressing it is an administrative responsibility, not something to be resolved through additional appropriations. “If morale is the issue, the superintendent is accountable,” he said.
What Comes Next
The Representative Town Meeting (RTM) is next to review the budget and has the power to make reductions. The official mill rate will be set afterward.
In many ways, this year’s budget drama in Greenwich was not about education or bond terms or even tax increases. It was about how a well-managed town with a history of fiscal restraint negotiates the modern pressures of politics, public perception, and competing narratives of responsibility
