The committee’s recommendation was the culmination of discussions on the town’s waste management program, which underscored the financial strain caused by increasing costs. One aspect of the debate was the rising tipping fee and the impact of the town’s contract with CMS down in Rochester. The committee reviewed pie charts showing a decrease in the percentage of program coverage by bag sales despite an increase in bag prices from 2019 to 2023. To counter the escalating costs, the committee deliberated on the possibility of a mandatory recycling fee and the sale of designated recycling bags as a new revenue stream.

The proposed solid waste fee, estimated to be $450,000 for the 2900 participating households, was a central topic of debate. The committee grappled with the question of whether a fee specific for recycling would interfere with the current contract with the disposal company. They also considered the implications of billing residents through tax bills or separate invoices and discussed the fairness and practicality of the fee. Concerns were raised about the uniform fee’s impact on households with varying trash output levels and the potential challenges in implementing the fee within a short timeframe.

The committee also considered increasing the cost of trash bags to cover recycling expenses. However, one member highlighted the risk of residents opting out of the program if costs reached a tipping point. The possibility of adjusting the price of trash bags to better align with recycling output and the logistics of fee implementation, including the need for a warrant article, were discussed.

The meeting also addressed the proposed increase in sticker fees for the transfer station, emphasizing that the goal was to cover operating costs rather than generate profit. A suggestion to hold a mock town meeting was put forth to introduce the committee members to the community and to facilitate a joint meeting with other groups to discuss the policy and financial implications of the proposed changes.

In addition to waste management fees, the committee discussed budget items across various departments, focusing on potential changes and cuts. A point of contention was the Communications budget, particularly the increase in costs due to communication upgrades. The committee scrutinized the need for cuts in areas such as the Reserve Fund, subscriptions, professional and technical services, and vehicle supplies and maintenance, weighing the potential impact on services against the need to maintain fiscal discipline.

The discussions extended to departmental budget transfers and clarifications on working hours and salaries of the office manager. Debates on reducing life insurance and contingency expenditures were coupled with concerns over a projected budget deficit increase resulting from changes in the house cherry sheet and decisions by the board of assessors on exemptions. The committee managed to identify reductions that brought the deficit back down by $42,000, maintaining a positive levy limit and ensuring a budget buffer.

The allocation of free cash was also discussed, with a consensus on the importance of leaving at least $200,000 available. The committee reviewed the status of various reserves, including the stabilization fund and capital stabilization for capital projects. Furthermore, questions about the rental fee for the school building used for elections and the interest rates on municipal funds were also brought up in the discussions.