A significant portion of the meeting centered on the upcoming budget challenges, particularly the surprising increase in group health costs. These costs are projected to rise by 12%, a stark contrast to the anticipated 6% to 8% increase. This unexpected surge is attributed to the ongoing effects of the post-COVID environment, with the consultant known for their accuracy in forecasting. Each percentage point increase in these costs translates to approximately $377,000, which contributes to a substantial budget deficit. Rising utility expenses further complicate the financial landscape, although there is optimism that fuel costs may stabilize this year. However, overall expenditures continue to escalate, creating a challenging financial scenario for the town and school operations.

The budget deficit, projected to leave the town budget around $1.3 million in the red, raises concerns. While the exact figures for the school side remain unclear, expectations are that the deficit will be even larger. This prompted the committee to discuss the necessity of creative solutions to manage these financial constraints and emphasize the importance of tightening budgets in the current fiscal year. A working group focused on revenues and expenditures is set to be discussed at an upcoming Select Board meeting. This group aims to reassure the public that all fiscal measures have been taken to balance the budget responsibly and to evaluate the potential need for taxpayer support beyond the limits set by Proposition 2½. While this could address concerns for FY 27, it does not resolve the immediate issues of FY 26, which is projected to be exceptionally lean.

The committee expressed frustration with the projected flat governor’s budget, expected in early February, which offers no significant increase in state funding. They highlighted that the two key revenue sources from the state—Unrestricted General Government Aid and Chapter 70 funding for schools—are tied to legislative negotiations. One committee member stated, “we are running out of rabbits to pull out of hats,” indicating the exhaustive efforts already made to maximize revenues and tighten budgets.

Discussions also delved into the potential privatization of sanitation services. The anticipated budget deficit, exceeding $1.3 million, was highlighted as a financial challenge. It was noted that privatizing sanitation, despite removing nine full-time employees from the books, would still increase overall costs due to the contract’s expense. A proposal regarding sanitation fees suggested an increase, the first in two years, to prevent “sticker shock” for residents. This fee adjustment would aim to cover the necessary service costs, with an emphasis on ensuring residents understand the rationale behind it.

The conversation shifted towards shared services as a potential avenue for increasing operational efficiency. Legal services and payroll were identified as areas for potential collaboration. The committee acknowledged that previous attempts at payroll consolidation had encountered difficulties, with one participant recalling issues that led to the initiative’s failure. The importance of retaining staff with expertise in local payroll processes was emphasized, with some members expressing caution about shifting responsibilities away from in-house staff. A dedicated working group was proposed to identify opportunities for consolidating operations, with the intention of building on past successful collaborations while ensuring effective discussions.

A timeline for the working group’s efforts was established, with a firm deadline set for the end of the following summer. This action was deemed critical in addressing the financial challenges facing the district. Further dialogue confirmed that sanitation employees assist with snow removal, and despite anticipated staffing changes, operational needs would be met due to the flexibility of the highway and sanitation division.