The discussion on election security took center stage as the Committee evaluated a proposed $800 increase in the election budget. This increase resulted from a policy shift mandating police presence instead of constables. Members expressed confusion and concern over the selectmen’s decision, which was made without public input or clear explanation. The town clerk noted that the change would raise the professional services line item from $210 to $1,040 per election for police officers. The Committee voiced concerns about the financial burden this would impose, especially with the potential for three elections in FY27 further amplifying costs.

The conversation revealed that the historical role of the constable had not previously posed such financial challenges and that the selectmen’s unilateral decision left committee members questioning both the necessity and timing of the change. A motion was made to formally advise against the budget increase, urging the town to reconsider maintaining the constable’s role. This motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Following this, the Committee delved into discussions about the allocation of free cash and the implications of the Community Preservation Act (CPA). With $200,000 earmarked for schools and $1,000 for a fire truck, questions arose regarding the clarity of these allocations. The CPA, set to take effect on July 1st with a 1% tax on property assessments, sparked debate on its long-term viability and the potential for revocation after five years. Concerns were aired about diminishing state contributions and the possibility of unused funds remaining stagnant without approved projects.

The exploration of the reserve fund, which saw a 20% reduction to $50,000 for FY26, highlighted the ongoing budgetary constraints. Members debated whether to maintain or further cut the fund, given its critical role in unforeseen expenditures, such as emergency repairs. A motion was proposed to keep the reserve fund at its current level.

The Committee also addressed the broader financial state of the town, with the overall budget totaling $28,971,737. Members called for a return to more structured budget presentations, reminiscent of previous practices, to avoid the current confusion and lack of clarity.

Trash collection and recycling issues were another point of contention, particularly regarding the cost and requirement of specific barrels for recycling. Frustrations were voiced over improper trash pickup and the financial burden placed on residents, especially senior citizens. Discussions on the trash program included the potential implementation of a fee to balance the program’s funding without increasing costs for residents, though this proposal raised questions about its practicality and enforcement.

School budget challenges were also discussed, with a recent reallocation of funds to cover the school assessment revealing the precarious nature of the town’s finances. Members acknowledged the necessity of making difficult budget cuts, emphasizing the prioritization of essential services and statutory requirements.

The Committee further explored the town’s project financing, particularly the unexpected $81,000 cost increase for a truck, initially budgeted at $800,000. This led to discussions on additional borrowing and its implications for the town’s long-term financial health. The potential sale of two fire trucks was considered as a means to alleviate financial strain, though concerns about the timeline of fund availability were raised.