Budget Committee Meeting ~ February 24, 2025

2025-02-24 · Budget Committee · 2:02:05 · watch on YouTube →

The budget committee met on 24 February 2025 to set its recommendations on the select board's 18-month budget. It rejected the select board's general government figure and instead recommended $1,065,375, a 6.4 percent increase rather than the 14.1 percent proposed, built by applying a 3 percent increase to last year's larger of budget or actual. It then went along with the select board on public safety, public works, community services, debt service, the capital reserve transfers and the use of $740,000 of fund balance, mostly on split votes. A long exchange with the select board chair and town manager established that the committee had no warrant article language to vote on because the select board sets it on 26 February, with the printer deadline on 15 March. The meeting was continued to Thursday 27 February at 6.30 at the Eureka Community Center so the committee can vote on the article wording once it exists.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 0:08
   Taxable valuation figure

   A member questioned the taxable valuation used in the budget, saying it normally rises each year with new homes and substantial renovations. The answer given was that the select board would not adjust it because the assessing is done after town meeting, too late for these figures.

2. 0:08
   Motion to accept the select board's general government figure

   A member moved to accept the select board's $1,143,060 for general government, on the grounds that an 18-month budget carries a lot of uncertainty. The motion was seconded by Jill.

3. 6:24
   The alternative general government figure

   Neil (?) described the spreadsheet he had circulated, built by taking the larger of last year's budget or actual and multiplying by 1.03, giving $742,031 for administration, assessing left unchanged because it was down, information technology reduced, and planning and code enforcement set at last year's budget plus 3 percent. He used 3 rather than 3.5 percent because the town is also paying the half percent employer share of the paid family leave law. The result was $1,065,375, a 6.4 percent increase against the 14.1 percent proposed.

4. 6:24
   Debate on the growth of general government

   Jill (?) said general government rose 10 percent last year and 14 percent this year, that new programmes and services had been started without the townspeople's approval unlike the fire department's night per diem shift, and objected to a new HR consultant and higher legal fees. Others said no services are being cut at a 6.4 percent increase, while John (?) said last year's spending came within about 1 percent of budget where the auditor had recommended 2 to 3 percent, and that cutting town services because the school and county are rising is not fair. A member also said residents on fixed incomes cannot absorb the increase and are already confused by the 18-month change and its effect on escrow accounts.

5. 11:55
   Vote on the select board's general government figure

   The motion to accept the select board's number failed. The chair announced only part of the tally, with two in favour.

6. 18:09
   Motion for the budget committee's own figure

   Neil (?) moved and Allan (?) seconded a broken-down general government recommendation totalling $1,065,375, covering administration, assessing, information technology and planning and code enforcement. Allan (?) noted that the select board's budget uses fund balance annualised at $493,333 against a financial adviser's recommended range of $350,000 to $600,000, leaving roughly $107,000 of headroom that could offset adjustments.

7. 24:13
   School and county assessments

   Members were told the school figure built into the budget is 7.6 percent annualised, which is close to a percentage point above what the school board first recommended, with extra allowance built in; one member noted the same figure appears as 9.7 percent over the full 18 months. The county came in at 9.6 percent.

8. 29:43
   The accountant on fund balance strategy

   The committee voted to let the town's accountant, Mark, speak. He said the unassigned fund balance is currently too large, that it is untaxed money belonging to residents rather than a savings account, and that the strategy is to draw it down gradually while budgeting to use less each year, so that the town avoids a fiscal cliff when debt service and capital transfers still have to be funded. He said Jill's point is valid, that using fund balance masks the growth in spending, and that the discipline comes from budgeting to use less of it each year.

9. 35:20
   Interest income and the adviser's range

   Asked why the town does not simply live on the interest the balance earns, Mark (?) said investment income is already counted as revenue and that the estimate had been raised after the committee's earlier comments. He said last year the town budgeted to use $668,000 and actually used a little over $400,000, that his recommendation to the select board was a range of $300,000 to $600,000, and that the $740,000 now budgeted over 18 months is above what he would prefer but probably manageable.

10. 40:49
    The accountant on the committee's method

    Mark (?) said applying a flat 3 or 3.5 percent to last year's actuals understates real costs, giving the example of one post held for nine months by a person taking no health or retirement benefits being replaced by two employees who do. He said he is not a fan of picking individual items to cut, and that if the committee wants to reduce a figure it should recognise it is reducing an entire department and let the town vote between the two numbers.

11. 46:08
    Vote on general government

    The committee recommended $1,065,375 for general government by 7 votes to 2.

12. 46:08
    Public safety budget

    A member moved to accept the select board's public safety figure, read out as about $1.55 million, arguing that once the per diem night shift already approved by the town is factored in it represents only about a 5 percent increase. John (?) added that minimum wage increases are a large part of the fire department budget and that OSHA has imposed expensive new requirements on fire departments.

13. 51:34
    Proposed reduction to fire part-time wages

    Neil (?) proposed reducing the part-time staff wages line of $458,850, reasoning from the chief's prior year budget of $262,000 plus 10 percent, a cut of about $26,184. Others said night per diem staff are EMTs paid well above minimum wage, that call volume rose 10 percent, and that the ambulance service is one of the most important the town provides. The public safety recommendation was then adopted 5 votes to 3.

14. 56:51
    Public works budget and bulky waste day

    John (?) moved the select board's public works figure of $2,880,550, which now includes municipal buildings and solid waste. A member proposed holding bulky waste day every other year to save about $20,000, saying not even half the town uses it; others said the year it was skipped there was rubbish along the roads and general regret, and that using Free Port or a private dumpster costs residents far more.

15. 1:02:45
    Votes on public works and community services

    Public works was recommended 6 votes to 3. Community services now contains only general assistance, at a figure read out as both $1,000 and $11,000; members noted the amount is set by the state. A request to add funding for other organisations was dropped after members were told it will not be on the warrant.

16. 1:08:08
    Dispute over the missing warrant articles

    Allan (?) objected to voting on articles that have not been presented. The select board chair replied that the committee had scheduled its meeting before the board votes on the warrant language on 26 February, and that had it met on the Wednesday the language would have been available. Allan (?) said that in his years on the committee the articles had always been provided first.

17. 1:13:09
    Exchange with the town manager over deadlines

    The chair asked the town manager whether he had been given a calendar setting the date by which the committee's recommendations were needed; the town manager said he had not given one this year and had said at the last joint meeting that the warrant language would be set on 26 February. The chair said he would have to put everything in writing from now on. The town manager said the printer needs everything by 15 March and that the select board moved its meeting to 4 March to allow time.

18. 1:18:41
    Whether to vote now or after the articles exist

    The committee agreed it must vote on any article with a financial impact, including the reduction by revenues and the use of fund balance, and that it would take the figures tonight and the wording later. It settled on continuing the meeting rather than closing it, so no fresh public notice would be required, and looked for a room for Thursday 27 February after finding the fire station unavailable.

19. 1:23:51
    Telecommunications reserve crossed wires

    The committee believed it had voted 7 to 2 the previous week against transferring money out of the telecommunications reserve, but the select board said it had received no recommendation in writing and had not changed its position. Mark (?) clarified that moving money between two existing reserves neither raises nor appropriates anything, unlike the transfers into the capital project reserves which have to be raised in taxes. The select board chair said the warrant will show the board recommending the transfer and the budget committee recommending against it.

20. 1:29:31
    Capital reserve transfers

    The committee agreed to vote on each capital reserve separately even though they may appear as a single article. The figures taken from page 17 were $37,500 for the public works reserve, $270,000 for fire and rescue, an amount for municipal buildings read out variously as $15,000, $115,000 and $155,000, and a grants matching amount given as both $6,000 and $3,152.

21. 1:40:19
    Question about what the reserves will buy

    Jane Rice, speaking as a resident rather than a committee member, said she had asked at two previous meetings what the capital money would be spent on and had still not been shown the ten year plan, and objected to the lack of transparency. She was told nothing is being bought this year, that the transfers only build the reserve, and that if she lacked the information to be confident she should vote against. The public works reserve was then recommended 6 votes to 3 and fire and rescue 6 votes to 3.

22. 1:45:33
    Municipal buildings and grants reserves

    The municipal buildings capital reserve was recommended 5 votes to 4. The grants matching reserve was moved at $3,152 after a disagreement about whether the current figure was $6,000, and recorded with 8 in favour. A combined motion for the total of the reserve accounts followed.

23. 1:51:23
    Reduction by revenues and use of fund balance

    The committee recommended reducing the amounts to be raised in the spending articles by estimated municipal revenues, 5 votes to 4. It then took up authorising the select board to appropriate up to $740,000 from the general fund balance, which members were told produces a tax levy increase of about 2.9 percent.

24. 1:56:39
    Fund balance vote, debt service and continuation

    The fund balance recommendation was recorded with 8 in favour and one member opposed. A motion followed to recommend total debt service, read out as both $85,318 and $85,100, and the result is not audible. The committee then voted to continue the meeting to Thursday 27 February at 6.30 at the Eureka Community Center, when the select board's warrant article language should be in hand.

What was decided

• 11:55
  Accept the select board's general government figure of $1,143,060; only part of the tally is audible, with two in favourfailed
• 46:08
  Recommend $1,065,375 for general government, a 6.4 percent increase, broken down by administration, assessing, information technology and planning and code enforcement; 7 to 2passed
• 51:34
  Recommend the select board's public safety figure, read out as about $1.55 million; 5 to 3passed
• 1:02:45
  Recommend $2,880,550 for public works; 6 to 3passed
• 1:02:45
  Recommend the select board's community services figure for general assistance, read out as both $1,000 and $11,000; no result is announcedoutcome unclear
• 1:40:19
  Recommend raising and appropriating $37,500 for the public works capital reserve; 6 to 3passed
• 1:40:19
  Recommend raising and appropriating $270,000 for the fire and rescue capital reserve; 6 to 3passed
• 1:45:33
  Recommend raising and appropriating an amount for the municipal buildings capital reserve, read out variously as $15,000, $115,000 and $155,000; 5 to 4passed
• 1:45:33
  Recommend raising and appropriating $3,152 for the grants matching capital reserve; recorded with 8 in favourpassed
• 1:45:33
  Recommend the combined total for the capital reserve accounts; no result is announcedoutcome unclear
• 1:51:23
  Recommend reducing the amounts authorised to be raised in the spending articles by estimated municipal revenues; 5 to 4passed
• 1:56:39
  Recommend authorising the select board to appropriate up to $740,000 from the general fund's existing fund balance to reduce the amounts raised in taxes; recorded with 8 in favour and one opposedpassed
• 1:56:39
  Recommend total debt service, read out as both $85,318 and $85,100; no result is announcedoutcome unclear
• 1:56:39
  Continue the meeting to Thursday 27 February at 6.30 at the Eureka Community Centerpassed

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Worth knowing

• 46:08
  The committee will go to town meeting recommending $1,065,375 for general government against the select board's $1,143,060, a 6.4 percent increase instead of 14.1 percent. Jill's objection was that general government rose 10 percent last year and 14 percent this year and that services have been added without a town vote.
• 1:08:08
  The committee had no warrant article language to vote on. The select board chair said it had met before the board sets that language on 26 February; the committee chair said the town manager had given him deadline dates in previous years, and the town manager said he had given no calendar this year. Everything must be with the printer by 15 March.
• 35:20
  The town's accountant recommends budgeting to use between $300,000 and $600,000 of fund balance; the budget proposes $740,000 over 18 months, which he said is more than he would prefer. Last year $668,000 was budgeted and a little over $400,000 actually used. Members were told the resulting tax levy increase is about 2.9 percent.
• 1:40:19
  Jane Rice (?) said she had asked at two earlier meetings what the capital reserve money would buy and had still not been shown the ten year plan. She was told nothing is being purchased now and that if she lacked the information she should vote against.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 10 passages of motion language, against 14 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2025-02-10 Budget Committee2026-05-04 Budget Committee →All meetings