The finance committee’s presentation revealed a current deficit of $529,000, primarily due to increased expenditures outpacing revenue growth. Revenues had risen by 14%, but expenditures had surged by 22%, largely driven by significant salary increases within town management and the building and planning departments. The committee underscored the need for careful evaluation of whether the town was generating adequate revenue from ancillary services and whether costs were being fairly distributed among all residents.

A key point of contention was the proposed increase in the solid waste fee from $400 to $450 per unit, a 133% hike. The solid waste department was operating at a significant loss, with expenses totaling $720,000 against revenue of just $68,000. Despite the proposed fee increase, a deficit of $62,000 would still remain, necessitating the use of reserve funds to cover costs. There were discussions about increasing franchise fees, particularly for commercial dumpster use, as the current 5% increase was deemed inadequate.

The town’s reliance on sales tax revenue and the potential loss of the one percent tax from goods and services were also flagged as risks to financial stability. The council deliberated on the need to secure grants, increase commercial fees, and find efficiencies across departments to avoid further tax increases or assessments.

Another major discussion point was the long-term financial plan, which required significant investments in aging infrastructure. The council expressed concern over the perception that the town could face financial instability due to the budget shortfall.

The finance committee recommended against raising assessments for the road and drainage fund, particularly as it would disproportionately affect senior citizens and veterans. Instead, they suggested working within the existing revenue increase without raising taxes or assessments. They also highlighted the importance of finding efficiencies across departments to manage costs effectively.

In addition to solid waste fees, the council discussed the necessity of scrutinizing spending across various departments. Suggestions were made to cut costs to address the projected shortfall without raising taxes. This included deferring some projects and evaluating the implications of staffing increases against overtime expenditures.

Further deliberations revealed concerns about the budget’s transparency and accuracy. Discrepancies in budget documents were noted, with one member pointing out an inaccurately reported deficit of $28,900. The reliance on reserve funds to balance the budget raised sustainability concerns, emphasizing the need for a more stable financial framework.

The council also considered the financial implications of non-homesteaded and commercial properties, particularly with significant commercial developments expected in the next tax cycle. A proposal to increase the franchise fee from 3% to 25% aimed to offset expenses for residents by placing additional financial responsibility on commercial entities. This adjustment was projected to generate $220,000 in revenue.

Emergency repairs on roads and canals were another topic, with inquiries about the costs incurred for these repairs. The estimated cost for emergency canal repairs was around $198,000, and the need for transparency regarding these repairs and their impact on capital improvement projects was emphasized.

During public comment, Virginia Standish commended the council for their budget analysis and advocated for a special taxing district. She raised concerns about the PBSO spending and suggested more cost-effective solutions for surveillance and basic infrastructure maintenance.