The committee’s primary concern was an unexpected $3,500 bill for a library audit, far exceeding the $850 MLP budgeted for audit expenses. Members expressed frustration over the lack of prior communication about the bill’s amount, highlighting an oversight in the town’s budgetary processes. The committee debated whether the MLP should bear the entire cost, given that the expense was tied to town activities rather than MLP-specific operations.

One proposal suggested splitting the bill, with the MLP covering $1,285—comprising $850 from the previous year’s budget and $435 from the current fiscal year—and the town absorbing the remainder. The committee emphasized the importance of maintaining goodwill with the town and avoiding potential conflicts that could arise from unresolved financial issues. There was a consensus to communicate to the select board that while the MLP is willing to pay $2,000 annually for audit expenses, the town should cover any additional unforeseen costs.

Compounding the financial issues, the committee faced confusion over the fiscal year 2024 budget. A member expressed a lack of understanding regarding how a previously voted-on reserve fund was applied, leading to discrepancies between available funds and reported shortfalls. A meeting with an external consultant clarified that a $40,000 shortfall could be mitigated by applying the June payment from MLP fees to fiscal year 2024. However, a $10,500 deficit remained, raising further questions about the application of funds.

The discussion also touched on a subsidy program for residents qualifying for Lifeline, aimed at bridging the gap left by the federal Affordable Connectivity Plan (ACP). The committee had decided that anyone qualifying for Lifeline would automatically receive a $15 Shutesbury subsidy. However, there was confusion about how to account for this subsidy in the budget. Some members argued for treating the subsidy as a direct expense, while others preferred reducing the anticipated revenue from MLP fees by the same amount.

Additionally, the committee reviewed the financial implications of seasonal rates and subscriber numbers. Although the seasonal rates affected a small number of subscribers, the committee decided to adjust their budget to reflect a more accurate estimate of expected subscribers. This adjustment aimed to simplify the accounting process by aligning the budget more closely with reality.

The committee also discussed the decline in participants for the Lifeline program, from 21 in July to 11.29 in August, attributed to the end of the ACP subsidy. The committee expressed concern that many eligible individuals might procrastinate in applying for Lifeline despite prior notifications.

Another topic of concern was the feasibility of implementing outage text notifications. As cell coverage improves in the region, it may eventually provide a more reliable alternative for communication during outages.

The committee’s focus then shifted to future planning, particularly regarding the Internet Service Provider (ISP) contract, which is set to expire in approximately a year. Members emphasized the need for clarity about the terms of the current contract and its impending expiration as a priority for future meetings.