What are you willing to give up?
- 9 hours ago
- 3 min read
After the budget was defeated at referendum on May 5, 2026, both the board of Education (BOE) and Board of Selectmen (BOS) had to make more than $227,000 worth of cuts to their budgets. Both the First Selectman Bill Morrison, and Superintendent of Schools Scott Sugarman, indicated that if the budget goes to a third referendum hard decisions may have to be made about what services and programs are cut.
Is the community ready to start reckoning with what it will lose? More importantly, does the community understand what it will cost us in the long run?
One resident’s suggestions
After the BOS voted to approve cuts, resident Brian Bagley used the public comments section of the meeting to suggest cutting an entire department and charging renters (or at least rental units) an added fee to help fill the community’s coffers. Bagley argued that single family homes are generally worth more than two-families or multi-family dwellings, and therefore, are not paying as much in taxes.
Bagley suggested charging a $500 a year per unit license fee that would go directly to the school district. (New Britain instituted a similar fee more than a decade ago but landlords fought back.) Presumably, the town would not go door to door checking how many children you actually have in the school system, so even renters who don’t use the school system would be on the hook, because even if the charge is to landlords, it would undoubtedly get passed on to tenants. Bagley estimated this could raise between $400,000 and $500,000 a year based on 900 to 1,000 rental units in town.
But Bagley also suggested eliminating Stafford Family Services: “The mission of Stafford Family Services is to support children, adults and families in Stafford and surrounding communities as they work with professionals to overcome daily challenges and improve their quality of life. Stafford Family Services is licensed by the Connecticut Department of Public Health & the Connecticut Department of Children and Families as an Outpatient Clinic.”
In this year’s budget proposal, the Town estimates it will receive about $31,787 from the Department of Children and Families, and $84,704 from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. They also estimate about $200,000 in revenue from insurance collections.
Though Bagley argued that this move could save the Town around $500,000, that’s not quite right. Family Services’ requested budget totals $518,480 for 2026-2027. After you deduct the funding from the State, and the revenue the department brings in, it could save the Town $201,989 to eliminate this department. Not even enough to meet the Board of Finance’s demand.
Savings at what cost?
Bagley argued that because Johnson Memorial Hospital is in town, Family Services is redundant. However, research tells us that investing in mental healthcare helps save money elsewhere: “Research shows that community-led mental health prevention and resilience programs can save significant money, while improving the health, safety, and wellbeing of individuals, families, and communities. One community program was found to save over $5 for every $1 invested.”
Several times this year, when the Resident State Trooper reported to the town, he listed the number of Domestic Violence calls they responded to. And he was also asked how that number compares to other towns. As it turns out, Stafford may have more domestic violence calls than you would expect in a town this size. Meanwhile, one of the cuts actually made to the budget was $10,000 for per diem police. Meanwhile, at least one Stafford resident on Facebook forums advocated for eliminating the entire police department.
Arguments can certainly be made for and against all of these suggestions, but perhaps the most important question is what those reductions would cost in the long run. More ambulances calls to the hospital? Higher crime rates? More State Trooper coverage? More pressure on the school system for services?
The reality is, there are often hidden costs to cuts. Eliminate a position and you then have to pay unemployment. Cut mental health services and pay for it elsewhere (we’ve seen that playing out on a larger scale since the 1980s).
So, as we go forward, leadership has to ask, what will these savings cost us.