Faced with a proposed big property tax increase by the mayor, one New London city councilor made it clear he and his fellow councilors needed to do their job.

“The City Council must step up and adopt a budget that holds the line on city government spending and gives the taxpayers and businesses a well-deserved respite from increased taxes,” he said.

That was two years ago. The comments came from then-Councilor Michael Passero in a guest commentary that appeared in The Day. He was reacting to a proposed 12.5 percent tax hike presented to the council by then-Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio.

Later in 2015, having led a council insurrection that trimmed the mayor’s budget and the tax hike, Passero defeated Finizio in the Democratic primary on the way to becoming mayor, running as the fiscal austerity candidate who would control spending and taxes.

“As Mayor, I will provide the strong fiscal leadership that is necessary to end the cycle of precipitous tax increases,” wrote Passero in his campaign literature.

Fast-forward to this budget cycle, which Passero began by proposing a budget that would boost the tax rate by 6.1 mills, a 15 percent increase, precipitous by any definition. This week His Honor offered a revised budget, which drops the proposed increase in taxes to 4.2 mills, a still hefty 10.4 percent increase.

In making the downward adjustment, the mayor did not find new ways to trim spending, but instead concluded that New London will not have to start contributing to funding teacher pensions. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy had proposed shifting one-third of that burden from the state to municipalities, but Passero said the legislature does not back the idea and he’s probably right.

As for why the big increase, Passero points to fixed costs, providing a $1 million boost in education spending to continue progress on the magnet-schools plan, and the need to make up for losses in state aid.

The $90.8 million budget, with $49.1 million for city government and $41.7 million for education, contains no staff cuts.

With the budget already having passed through the first of three readings, no one has emerged on the council to be the version of the 2015 Passero and push the mayor by presenting him with an alternative council budget, as Passero did in leading the council’s rebellion two years ago. Passero’s tax hike now on the table appears excessive, particularly knowing residents could be hit with other tax increases as the legislature seeks to close the state’s massive budget gap.

Also unresolved is the issue of how to pay for school maintenance. Passero, in preparing the budget, removed the $515,000 funding that the city used in the past to maintain schools. Passero said the cost and responsibility for maintaining city schools should rest with the Board of Education. That makes sense. It’s how other towns do it.

However, the maintenance line item in the education budget is $338,585, a significant drop from what the city set aside for school maintenance. The council needs a clear understanding that a plan to adequately maintain schools is in place before it signs off on the policy change. Councilor Erica Richardson should continue pushing the issue.

The council moved the budget along after the first reading by a 5-2 vote, with Richardson a no vote because of her concerns over paying for school maintenance, and Councilor John Satti opposed because of the hefty tax increase.

If he wants to cast more than a protest vote, however, Satti will have to come back to his fellow Democrats — who control all seven seats — with cost-cutting ideas to consider.

The mayor should appreciate that. He’s been there.