Capital projects and their funding sources were a componet of the meeting. The Capital Improvements planning committee had reviewed 23 requests, including significant ones like the Deerfield Elementary School projects, server replacement for municipal offices, and the much-discussed purchase of a Senior Center van. The van’s acquisition was particularly noted for its 80% grant coverage and its operational importance in terms of expanding services for seniors, notwithstanding concerns over ADA compliance and cost management.

Further deliberations encompassed the replacement of the Bloody Brook culvert, expected to be funded by an MVP grant, and various grant-matched projects such as stormwater and sewer asset management. The board examined the potential engineering costs and the consequences of not receiving the anticipated grant, highlighting a careful approach to budget allocation and prioritization.

The discussion extended to the proposed floating dock at the town beach, included in the FY 2026 Capital plan, for which the board considered seeking ADA grant funding. Accessibility and lifeguard supervision were key points here. Moreover, the board contemplated long-term maintenance costs for the L lot, including the upkeep of EV chargers, and the 1888 building, whose fate remains undecided.

Road repairs also took center stage, with a proposal to partner with nonprofit educational institutions for funding. This initiative, aimed at addressing the town’s infrastructure needs, underscores the broader community engagement the board seeks in the pursuit of financial solutions.

The need for a joint meeting with the finance committee was mentioned, intending to present and review the capital plan collectively.

The board’s fiscal prudence was again evident in the debate over the potential impact on the town’s credit rating and the discussion on whether to use free cash to fund projects. A prop two and a half override or budget cuts were considered as measures to address financial constraints, and the decision was made to defer the funding discussion for the elementary school flooring.

Key budget items, such as the assessor’s salary and administrative expenses, underwent rigorous examination. The board approved the budgets for these items after queries about specific expense increases, like those for title searches, were addressed. Similarly, the Frontier Regional School budget was approved following a review and resolution of discrepancies in the percentage increase and transportation budget.

The transportation contract for the elementary school also received attention due to cost concerns, with the board assessing the financial implications of a flex vehicle for Deerfield and the increase in the transportation contract. The board confronted additional budgetary challenges, such as contracted services for takings and surveying work for Stillwater Road properties, and weighed the merits of charging expenses to the operating budget or free cash.

Telecommunications upgrades were another issue, with the board expressing urgency due to the current system’s unreliability. The possibility of changing the phone system to a subscription model was discussed, alongside the financial burden caused by repeated system fixes. The indirect cost calculation and the use of remaining ARPA funds for consulting were debated, acknowledging the constraints imposed by prop two and a half.

Finally, the allocation of funds for diverse expenses, such as land acquisition, OPED funding, and the Reserve fund, was scrutinized. The board discussed the implications on the levy limit and the necessity of allocating $10,000 for land acquisition, either as part of the capital schedule or within the budget. The discussions were characterized by the board’s diligent consideration of financial prudence, community needs, and long-term fiscal responsibility.