Key Points:
- Modest turnout and limited public comment shaped discussion of a $151.7M town budget and multiple bonding items
- Some residents raised concerns about transparency and spending, but no motions were made to alter the budget
- Final decisions now shift to Saturday’s vote, where turnout could determine whether ballots are counted at face value
Why it Matters: Key spending decisions and tax impacts are still undecided, and voter turnout Saturday will determine whether the community’s vote truly counts or the budget passes automatically.
Despite some comments of concern about the transparency and accuracy of the Board of Selectmen budget specifically, the public in attendance at Tuesday night’s Annual Town Meeting largely expressed support for the proposed $151,701,690 town budget.
Around 100 people came out to the Clune Auditorium on May 5 to express their thoughts on the budget vote and a handful of referendum items, including nine bonding proposals, establishment of a new designated town fund for non-recurring capital items, and a first-time lease with the Friends of Ambler Farm regarding that property.
“We in Wilton have what is sometimes called a direct democracy…” Moderator Steve Hudspeth declared. “It’s a huge responsibility for all of us and the fact that you are here carrying out this responsibility is an enormous tribute to you.”
Seize the Opportunity to Vote
On Saturday, May 9, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Wilton voters can still seize the opportunity to vote on these 12 separate items by ballot. Voting takes place at the Clune Center (395 Danbury Rd.).
Around 20 residents addressed the assembly at the meeting. On stage were most members of the Boards of Education, Finance and Selectmen, along with First Selectman Toni Boucher, Chief Financial Officer Dawn Savo and Town Clerk Lori Kaback.
Boucher, BOE Chair Ruth DeLuca and BOF Chair Tim Birch each shared presentations on their respective areas, including the BOS budget and proposed bonding items, the BOE budget, and the overall proposed budget and mill rate, which is proposed to increase 2.7%.
Several residents made favorable comments about Ambler Farm — both for the new lease, which would establish a more clear delineation of responsibilities between the nonprofit that has served as the steward of the town-owned property for 20 years and the Town of Wilton — and for the $1,367,749 bond being requested to do extensive renovations on the historic Yellow House at the entrance to the property.
Residents also spoke in favor of the $300,000 request for four outdoor pickleball courts, a $1,200,000 allocation to replace the artificial turf field at Lilly Field, and for the school budget at large, which represents two-thirds of the overall town budget at $100.5 million, a 3.6% increase over the current year.
Voting “No” on Budget
A few people emphasized their unhappiness with the BOS budget, however, and pledged to vote ‘No’ on the overall package for that reason. They cited ongoing issues with transparency and an absence of final audit numbers for Fiscal Year 2025 as among the reasons. Still, though they had the opportunity, no one chose to make any motions for line reductions in the BOS budget during what was a relatively fast-moving meeting.
Resident Barbara Geddis, a regular attendee at many town meetings, shared three reasons why she is “rejecting the Board of Selectmen budget because it is too high.”
“This last year we’ve had a palpable lack of transparency in our financial leadership,” she said. “It’s getting better but it’s May 2026 and we’re really nowhere.”
Geddis faulted the BOS for not coming in at the guidance recommended by the BOF of no more than a 3.6% increase, coming in instead with a 4.4% increase. She also said that no clear case has been made to support that increase.
Resident Julie Finch said that the mill rate should not be increasing and that, instead, the town should find $3.8 million in cuts in order to match with the $149 million it’s projecting in revenue next year.
“I would like you to go back and work at keeping that mill rate the same as last year … You need to cut $3.8 million … You need to have more hard choices and you need to have more transparency,” Finch said.
“Imperfect Information”
In his brief presentation, BOF Chair Birch described the particulars of the budget, including the goal of holding any tax increase under 3%. He noted that because the Grand List came in higher than was expected it’s taking some pressure off the numbers, in part allowing the BOF to put aside a recommended $500,000 in reserves beyond the 1% of the budget that the town is legally required to hold in its reserve fund.
“We worked with imperfect information,” Birch said. “At times during this process I was a little uncertain we were going to come to an agreement on this budget.”
He said, however, that through a lot of hard work they were able to arrive at numbers that will result in a 2.7% increase in the mill rate.
Deluca spoke longer about the details of the BOE budget, which she described as meeting the needs of the Wilton School District in a cost-effective manner.
“This year’s budget answers our goals and priorities,” she said, citing strategic spending and resource allocation in order to keep the budget increase to the 3.6% that was recommended by the BOF.
Boucher defended the BOS budget and coming in above the BOF guidance by citing several factors, including expanding state mandates, public safety requirements, and what she described as “unprecedented growth” in Wilton, increasing the demand for town services.
She also took note of ongoing concerns related to her Finance Department, which has seen upheaval and troubled operations over the past year, creating conflicts between the BOF and Town Hall.
“We know there are concerns about the new [accounting] system that was not implemented correctly last year,” Boucher said. “This has not been easy to fix and it’s taken time and hard work. But the town’s finances are strong. Our costs are on budget and we are making steady progress every day.”
Road Restoration
With a new request in for road restoration bonding in the amount of $2,000,000, two residents said they would prefer that the town stopped bonding for this work and would instead return the expense to the BOS budget where it once was.
“We were not bonding roads for many many years,” Moses Alexander said. “They were paid out of the selectmen’s operating budget.”
The practice changed years ago, however, and he said it’s become habitual.
“The selectmen got addicted to that and couldn’t get it back in their budget, so I urge a ‘No’ vote on road paving,” Alexander said.
“It should be in my mind something that is part of the Board of Selectmen capital expenses that are not bonded,” former BOF member Paul Burnham said, “and I think it’s just a matter of the fact that we’ve been doing it this way that it’s difficult.”
While he said he would vote in favor of it still, he suggested the BOF look closer at the issue to see how much it was costing the town to bond the road restoration each year.
Other Cost Concerns
Resident Michael Graupner, a 50-year resident, said the cost of living in town was too high.
“It’s not just a lot of young people, a lot of young kids, asking for a $100-million school system,” he said, but others like himself who, he said, have to scramble to figure out how they’re going to pay their taxes.
“Look at the seniors,” Graupner said. “See what you can do for them. The current property tax program that Wilton offers is a joke.”
Resident Candace Cole expressed frustration that while residents are asked to vote on some important matters like the budgets and bonding, they are not asked about others. She cited the state’s Project Open Choice as something the town was not asked about — something she feels the district should not be involved in.
“We don’t need any outside students,” she said. “We can’t afford outside students.”
She also questioned why a new bathroom at Merwin Meadows was going to cost $500,000.
Favorable Feedback
Resident Bill Abrams shared an eager pitch in favor of the $300,000 being asked for pickleball courts, calling it a small investment that will be used for years to come.
“This isn’t just about sports,” he said. “It’s about creating a place where people come together across generations, gender and class to be active, social and connected … Pickleball is no longer just a senior activity. It’s one of the fastest growing sports in our country, where people of all ages get involved.
Several residents shared strong praise for Ambler Farm, including Lori Fusco, chair of the Historic District and Historic Property Commission.
“Historic preservation is about stewardship, protecting what makes Wilton distinct,” Fusco said. “Ambler Farm is one of our most treasured assets — a living connection to our agrarian roots and a place that truly sets our town apart.”
She and others voiced support for approving the farm’s new lease and bonding for the restoration of the Yellow House.
One question was raised about whether, as Boucher claimed in her presentation, the funding of the Yellow House would ultimately be cost neutral. Boucher said that Ambler Farm would be paying rent associated with the house to the town, but said “The amount has not yet been determined.”
Nine Items for Bonding
In opining on the nine items for bonding, the BOF gave its support to all but one. Instead, it officially gave “No Opinion” on the $1.2-million bonding proposal to replace the artificial turf field at Lily Field, which the BOS said they would not actually go out for bonding for it for at least a year.
The bonding items that are on the ballot for vote by residents are as follows:
#2: $2,000,000 for Road Restoration (approximately seven miles)
#3: $570,000 for Bridges (Kent Road Bridge Rehabilitation)
#4: $1,367,749 for renovation of Ambler Farm Yellow House
#5: $2,900,000 for Board of Education District Roof Replacement (partial roof replacement at Cider Mill School)
#6: $955,030 for Board of Education Cider Mill School Sitework, Doors and Windows
#7: $2,701,268 for Board of Education Cider Mill School Exterior Envelope Renovation
#8: $265,500 for Drainage and Pavement for the Parking Lot Adjacent to Guy Whitten Field
#9: $1,200,000 for Lilly Field Replacement
#10: $300,000 for four Outdoor Pickleball Courts
How Voting Works
Question #1 is specific to the budget and mill rate.
On the ballot residents have the option of voting ‘Yes, I approve’; voting ‘No, reject because the budget is too high’; or voting ‘No, reject because the budget is too low.’
If voting turnout does not hit a threshold of 15% of all eligible voters in Wilton — around 2,000 voters — the budget will automatically pass, regardless of the actual vote tally.
If the number of voters does meet the 15% threshold, the ‘Yes’ votes are counted and both kinds of ‘No’ votes are combined and counted together, and the vote is taken at face value, Yes vs. No.
If the No votes were to win, the BOF will be required to rework the budget and bring it back before the town prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2026, June 30.
Questions #2 through #12 will each be decided by a straight-forward vote tally, regardless of turnout percentage.
Questions #2 through #10 are the bonding referendums described above.
Questions #11 and #12 respectively pertain to establishment of a Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures Fund (CNREF), and the lease with Friends of Ambler Farm.
Voting will continue on Saturday, May 9, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the Clune Center (395 Danbury Rd.).
GOOD Morning Wilton has a recording of the livestream of the Tuesday evening meeting, below.
Editor’s note: Due to an editing error, the “Key points” and “Why it Matters” section was inadvertently omitted. It has been added to the story post-publication.
First, thank you to GOOD Morning Wilton and Heather for making the livestream available. That alone allowed many newcomers – and I’m sure many longtime Wilton residents too – to watch, learn, and participate in a way they otherwise may not have been able to. I know personally, without remote access to town meetings, I would have very little insight into any of this.
I’ve been thinking about the question of why no reduction motion was made. I don’t think the answer is that residents didn’t care. I think many people knew something felt wrong, especially around transparency, the audit, and the budget process, but did not necessarily know the exact procedural move available in that moment.
Making a public comment is one thing. Making a formal reduction motion is another. My understanding is that to make a reduction motion, a resident would need to know what category could legally be reduced, what dollar amount to propose, how to phrase the motion, and whether enough people in the room were prepared to support it.
Most residents are not walking into an Annual Town Meeting with parliamentary language ready in their back pocket. Many are still trying to understand the budget itself, the audit concerns, the bonding questions, the mill rate, and what their vote actually does.
So to me, the takeaway is not that residents failed to act. The takeaway is that we need better plain-English civic education before these meetings so concern can become meaningful participation.
People objected, but they did not convert objection into procedure. That is not apathy. It is a transparency and process-understanding gap.
The option still exists for residents to participate through the ballot vote. But going forward, I think both the town and the community could do a better job creating opportunities before the Annual Town Meeting for residents, board members, and town officials to talk openly, ask questions, and understand what tools are actually available.
Even something as simple as a public informational workshop could help residents understand what can and cannot be changed from the floor, what a valid motion sounds like, and how the process actually works.
That kind of clarity would help residents engage more confidently and constructively. It would also help rebuild trust because people would feel less like they are reacting from the outside and more like they understand how to participate from within the process.
I address some of the complaints about the Board of Selectmen’s proposed budget last night at the Town Meeting.
Regarding the fact that the FY2027 BOS budget was a 4.4% increase over last year’s, greater than the 3.6% recommended by the Board of Finance, given the fact that our town is growing at a viral rate – as illustrated by the demonstratives in the First Selectwoman’s slides – it should come as no surprise that the costs of our needs to serve the growth segment outpaces the traditional budget increase this year. While the Board of Education came in at the requested 3.6%, it also indicated that the number of students is not likely to increase this year.
For those who suggested a “no” vote on the basis that the BOS decision was simply willful disregard, it should be noted that the BOS has cut items they identified as important in response to BOF’s requests. The Selectmen have made valiant efforts to decrease their ask – I’ve been watching.
For those who urged us to vote no because of anger and frustration at the failure of the administration to have completed the FY2025 audit, I say shame on you. Whether you call it cutting off your nose to spite your face, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater, whatever and wherever the “blame” should lie – and I have very strong personal opinions, too – it should not lie with the services and personnel identified in the proposed budget. Those who deserve blame are not those for whom these dollars are being requested.
Regarding Kelly’s comment:
I believe she is referring to my public comment that due to lack of transparency and lack of final numbers, I believe that people should vote no on the budget.
As I stated in my second public comment (and as GMW mentions here), if we vote the budget down, it returns to us in June. Which is when Toni has stated we will have final numbers. I think it is the duty of the town officials to provide us with actuals before presenting an increase. So I believe even those who support the budget overall, ought to vote it down. I do not feel comfortable to vote for an increase when I do not know what the basis of the increase is. (Of course, someone else may have different views and I respect that.)
So there is no real loss on our end. It really just buys 1 month, and makes a statement. There is no spite either. I am thankful for the hard work of every employee of the town.
I think both sides of this concern are valid, but the bigger issue is process clarity.
This should not be framed only as “support the budget” or “oppose the budget.”
Residents are being asked to approve a full financial structure: operating spending, school spending, debt service, bonding, a new capital fund, and long-term obligations. That requires more than general trust or general frustration.
It requires clear, verified information.
For me, the concern is not whether town services matter. They do. The concern is whether residents had enough audit-confirmed financial visibility, plain-English explanation, and procedural understanding before voting.
I didn’t fully appreciate until recently that:
• the budget has a 15% turnout threshold
• low turnout can cause the budget to pass automatically
• in-person attendees can make limited reduction motions
• bonding approval authorizes future borrowing
• CNREF would create a new capital fund structure
• some referendum items operate differently from the budget vote itself
That means residents were not just voting on a number. They were voting on authority, debt, process, and future obligations.
So to me, the core question is:
Before residents vote, can they clearly understand what is being approved, what is being borrowed, what is still being verified, who controls the funds or assets, who benefits, who pays, and who remains responsible?
A no vote does not necessarily mean residents oppose town services or town employees. It can mean residents want the Board of Finance to return with clearer, audit-confirmed numbers before approving the final budget.
The tradeoff is that it creates short-term uncertainty and administrative work, but the purpose would be financial visibility before approval – not punishment of departments.
That is not anti-budget. It is basic public accountability.