MONTAGUE — Following a discussion between the Selectboard and Town Administrator Walter Ramsey on Monday about an initial $263,694 deficit as the town plans its fiscal year 2027 budget, the board opted to further review its budgeting options ahead of a final vote.
The early FY27 budget of nearly $31.5 million is almost balanced after departments were advised to submit a budget with a 2% reduction, leaving the $263,694 deficit after required budgeting into the reserve accounts, a memo from Ramsey explains. Ramsey said the reductions center around discretionary funding and don’t impact staffing levels.
The Selectboard and the Finance Committee will further discuss the figures ahead of the Feb. 9 budget recommendation deadline.
Ramsey said the Selectboard has to consider whether to recommend the proposed 2% reduced budgets or recommend a level-funded budget, as well as which departments the board wants to hear from regarding their budget proposals.
If the town opts for the 2% reduction, the town would be able to maintain a balanced budget without drawing on reserves or raising taxes, but it could impact service levels. If the town opts for level funding, the town would likely need to use excess levy capacity and/or reduce its contributions to the stabilization funds.
Selectboard Chair Matt Lord said he thinks allowing time to review the proposed department budgets would be beneficial, especially as some departments are working with budgets on a scale that could be impacted by a 2% reduction.
“I think that that’s the fairest way to do it, to make sure that town functioning continues on and that we’re not putting undue stress on our different departments that have different budgetary realities,” he said.
Selectboard members also indicated they’d like to speak with department heads from the Montague Clean Water Facility, the Department of Public Works, the Montague Police Department and the Turners Falls Municipal Airport, as these are among the larger budget categories.
Other considerations for the FY27 budget cycle include whether to use some of the $1.1 million in excess capacity levy to help cover the deficit, whether to fund the reserve accounts as usual and whether to look at temporary contribution reductions.