The debate over the school budget took center stage, as committee members grappled with the increasing reliance on free cash—a term for funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year—to cover school expenses. Concerns were raised about the escalating use of free cash, which had grown from $150,000 to $652,000. Members underscored the unsustainability of this practice, with calls for a return to last year’s levels as a step toward rectifying the direction of school funding. The challenges of state-mandated expenses were acknowledged, yet the necessity for a balanced budget and forward-thinking solutions were emphasized.

The discussions led to a vote where the committee decided to reduce the amount of free cash in the budget and correspondingly decrease the school expense number by an equivalent figure. This decision underscored the committee’s concern over unbalanced budgets and the long-term impact on the school department. Additionally, there was mention of establishing a special education stabilization fund, though concerns about the appropriateness of the allocation were voiced.

Moving to another significant issue, the committee deliberated on the creation of a town engineer position, weighing the benefits of a full-time role against the cost savings of contracting out services. Arguments in favor of the full-time position highlighted the efficiency and timeliness of having an in-house engineer familiar with the town’s projects, which the committee ultimately supported.

The Animal Control Officer budget also saw changes, with the committee approving an additional $25,000 aimed at hiring a part-time person to assist with managing the workload during peak times. The rationale behind this was to provide better coverage for animal control services and potentially reduce overtime costs.

Moreover, the meeting encompassed a discussion on the definition and use of free cash. While some members expressed concerns that returning budget money might affect taxpayer services, others defended the practice as a sign of department heads being fiscally responsible. This led to a debate about setting the appropriate level of free cash in the budget.