Mayoral candidates clash over village spending, budget

By JUAN lASSo jlasso@liherald.com

In less than two weeks, voters head to the polls, casting ballots for mayor, two trustees, and a village justice.

General election day is Tuesday, March 21, where voters will choose from three leadership slates, each led by a mayor candidate. They include the incumbent mayor, Edwin Fare, and the two people who want to unseat him — first-time challenger Cristina Arroyo, and Anthony Bonelli, seeking his second bid for Village Hall after an unsuccessful run in 2019.

Candidates are making their last pitch to voters ahead of the big day, showcasing their stands on a range of tough issues while promoting their distinct vision for the future. Figuring most prominently in the debate for mayor is the village’s projected financial state over the next four years.

And it’s not good — at least according to Bonelli and Arroyo.

They believe the village’s $34 million budget has been mishandled for more than a decade under the current administration. The leader of that administration, Fare, says the village’s wallet has suffered a short-term setback. But that’s only setting the stage for a long-term gain, and “the best is yet to come.”

When Fare and his party took office in 2011, noted Bonelli, the village’s once enviable Aa credit rating by Moody’s Investors Service has seen a steady decline, sinking to its current Ba1 rating in 2019, which financial experts largely regard as an investment liability.

A downgraded credit rating — which often means higher borrowing costs when financing for capital projects — is not the only barometer of the village’s deteriorating financial health. The state comptroller warned in 2021 that the village’s financial situation had reached a breaking point when it had fallen into the

“significant fiscal stress” category. The village, however, has since moved under a “susceptible fiscal stress” category.

But the fiscal assessments in both cases point to a fundamental issue: An inability to balance projected expenses with revenue.

The village’s inclination to run up costs, Fare said, was partly out of his control. He inherit- ed from his predecessor, Ed Cahill, a village that, on paper, was fiscally healthy thanks to his predecessor’s tight-fisted spending that kept roughly $11 million in reserves.

But Cahill’s fiscal caution ultimately left major big-ticket items unaddressed.

“Ed’s management style was Continued on page 10