During the meeting, the revision of a one-page letter intended for inclusion in the warrant became a focal point. This letter aimed to summarize the fiscal state of Westport, highlighting the town’s challenges in funding long-term needs and addressing deficits in the operating budget. The committee reviewed last year’s letter and discussed the intent of the current letter to describe the fiscal situation at a high level.

In terms of revenue, the impact of new growth and Proposition 2.5 was a topic of discussion, particularly the redistribution of new construction tax revenue and how it affects the overall budget. The committee members also considered the necessity of informing the general public about the budget in advance of town meeting. To that end, they proposed holding an informational meeting for the public to ask questions about the budget a week before the town meeting. Additionally, there was a suggestion to make the presentation available on Westport TV for public viewing continuously.

A mini PowerPoint presentation for the town meeting was also suggested, with a focus on key aspects such as the explanation of property tax workings and the concept of free cash. The committee acknowledged the need for a refresher on these topics, given the absence of changes in the town’s fiscal outlook.

The committee expressed concerns about the low attendance at their physical meetings and discussed engaging with residents through social media and the town website. While there was skepticism about the effectiveness of these outreach efforts and their potential impact on the committee’s independence, members planned to post information on how residents can reach out to them with questions.

The upcoming town meeting was another point of concern, with practical advice offered on parking and bringing coffee to the meeting. The importance of maintaining an independent stance during public votes was emphasized, as was the need for transparency in committee actions.

In addressing concerns over a potential open meeting law violation, members discussed the clarity of the minutes from previous meetings and the need for additional information to address the complaint. The committee considered reaching out to Town Administrator Jim Hartnett for guidance on how to respond to the allegations. A potential course of action included sending a letter to the Attorney General in acknowledgment of the violation. However, there was a consensus on the importance of staying transparent while also recognizing the need to avoid doubling the work for insignificant claims.

The committee’s deliberations concluded with an agreement on the necessity to end the ongoing discussion about the open meeting law violation.