New London property owners are being squeezed.

When asked about such a sharp increase in taxes, Mayor Passero makes the case that his hands are tied. He needs to figure out a way to untie them.

T he recently submitted petitions challenging the education and municipal budgets approved by the New London City Council provide one last opportunity for the council and Mayor Michael Passero to reconsider and reduce the steep tax increase they are about to impose on property owners.

The $90 million budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1 — $48.3 million for city government, $41.7 million for education — boosts the tax rate from 40.46 mills to 44.26 mills. That’s a 9.4 percent increase. It would mean taxes have increased 30 percent in the last four years. It’s too much.

When asked about such a sharp increase in taxes, Mayor Passero makes the case that his hands are tied. He notes that overall spending under the budget only increases a modest 1.9 percent. The cause of the big tax increase is predominantly an anticipated reduction in state aid for the city as the legislature struggles to fix its own budgetary crisis, Passero said.

Trying to force the tax increase below the 9.4 percent planned would require an unacceptable reduction in city services and/or reneging on his commitment to support the effort to improve city schools, he said.

The mayor’s position misses the point that whether the cause is spending or cuts in state aid, the burden for struggling working-class families in trying to come up with more money to pay taxes is the same. The deleterious effect on home prices due to the higher taxes is the same. And the potential to discourage investment in the city is the same.

Signatures on the petitions challenging the education and city government budgets far exceeded the necessary number of about 340. Taxpayers are not happy and with good reason.

Under the City Charter, the council has the option of amending the budget and tax increase in response to the petition. Or, with five votes, the seven-member council could send the budgets to referendum in a month’s time, requiring the council to make changes only if one or both are rejected.

Finally, the council could delay the referendum until the next regular election, Nov. 7, more than four months into the fiscal year.

Despite the mayor’s misgivings, reducing the budget and trimming the tax increase is the most appropriate response to the petitions.

Yes, trimming the tax increase roughly in half would have an impact on city services. It would require the Board of Education to find additional savings. But failing to make these tough choices places all the burden from lower state aid on city taxpayers.

Passero is urging the council to stand pat. He points to the uncertainty in Hartford, where the legislature has yet to submit a budget to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. Cuts in state aid could go even deeper. If the council were to lower the tax increase, then see the legislature further cut state aid, it would devastate city finances, Passero told us.

Better to delay a budget referendum until November, he said.

Yet other municipalities in the region have managed to approve budgets despite that uncertainty, none with a tax increase approaching the one planned in New London.

The mayor and council are in a tough situation, no doubt. New London’s limited tax base, its high percentage of untaxable nonprofit and government properties, and the role it plays providing many of the region’s social services leave it without the fiscal flexibility enjoyed by its wealthier neighbors.

But New London’s property owners are being squeezed. Through their petition drive they are crying out for some relief. As difficult as it may be, the council should find a way to provide it.