In addition to the Civil Service discussion, the committee tackled several budgetary concerns. The allocation of funds and use of free cash for budget supplements were debated, touching on the impact of changes to the budget process and the implications for departmental funding. The debate also covered the distribution of funding between the town and the schools, with concerns raised about the sustainability of the current budget model. Members expressed differing opinions on setting financial policies and priorities, particularly regarding the allocation of increases in the budget for public safety and education.

The issue of unspent money in the capital fund was another focal point of the meeting, especially concerning funds allocated for dam repairs. The committee decided to close out certain accounts and reallocate the funds accordingly, emphasizing the need for improved oversight and tracking of such accounts in the future. This led to a broader discussion about the clarity needed in the wording of articles related to budget allocation, particularly for a three-year cyclical reinspection program and a five-year recertification program for the town’s dams.

The committee also voted on Article 24, approving the use of $12,000 from free cash for the annual household hazardous waste collection day. Although there was discussion about the increasing costs and the absence of state or federal grants, the motion was carried. Furthermore, the members discussed Article 22, which requested $3,000 from free cash for the highway department to dispose of items such as mattresses found on the sides of roads. The discussion centered on whether this should be a recurring article or included as a line item in the department’s annual budget.

The Conservation Commission’s request for dam inspections and repairs was also a significant item. The commission sought $37,000 from free cash for a 5-year inspection of Shley Pond Dam and similar funding for the Norton Dam. The committee debated the methodology of requesting funds upfront for five years instead of annually, resulting in the decision to table the discussion until further information could be provided.

The salary increases within the town manager’s budget were scrutinized, particularly a debated 4% raise for an administrative position against a backdrop of a 1% across-the-board budget increase. The committee grappled with the sustainability of such raises and the potential need for layoffs due to budget constraints.

The meeting touched on various other budget items, including the accounting and legal budgets, and the municipal building budget, with an eye on energy costs and the transition to a new town hall. The potential for solar panels and the maintenance of the old town hall sparked debate among members.

Lastly, the committee denied a reserve fund transfer of $8,000 for the dog officer and discussed the scheduling of the public budget hearing. The purpose of the hearing, the need for additional information, and the possibility of reconsidering recommendations post-hearing were debated, culminating in a motion to adjourn.