Budget committee recommends $14.13 million operating budget and a slate of warrant articles after debate over audit and a proposed $200,000 cut

The Plaistow Budget Committee voted to recommend the town’s proposed $14,13,949 operating budget and a package of warrant articles at its meeting, after a heated debate that included an unsuccessful motion to cut $200,000 and repeated questions about an incomplete 2024 audit.

Committee members approved the operating budget after discussing whether the town should pare spending now or leave choices to voters. Member Richard moved to reduce the proposed operating budget by $200,000, saying the amount is “sort of in the historical realm of what the overage has been.” Opponents warned such a cut could force reductions in core services including highway, police and fire. The reduction motion did not carry and the committee proceeded to recommend the budget as proposed.

The group also recommended the water department enterprise appropriation. Jay, who responded to multiple line-item questions, described the water budget as an enterprise fund “100% self-supporting,” funded by water and fire-suppression subscribers rather than the town’s general taxpayer base. The committee moved and recommended the water warrant article to appropriate $512,54 from the enterprise fund for the coming year.

Audit concerns threaded through the discussion. Members noted the town’s 2024 financial audit had not yet been finalized; some suggested federal grant compliance work was part of the delay. “We don’t know why it’s being held up,” one member said, and the committee asked staff to obtain a status update from the town manager.

The committee also reviewed and recommended a number of capital and reserve warrant articles: a collective bargaining ratification for town hall employees (a three‑year settlement that adds roughly $53,000 in year-one costs, of which $40,000 would be raised as a warrant item), a contingency fund ($85,000), highway and building expendable trust deposits, fire apparatus and equipment reserves, a radio-replacement reserve, police vehicle and cemetery funds, and a small revaluation reserve for the town assessor.

A notable item of extended debate was a traffic-enforcement warrant to fund a dedicated traffic officer for six months (a $75,000 ask, reduced from an original $150,000 proposal for two positions). Supporters said a dedicated officer would address speeding and safety on routes including Main Street; critics said the police department is fully staffed and urged the chief to deploy existing personnel more strategically or seek state assistance before creating a permanent new position. The committee voted to recommend the $75,000 warrant article to the ballot.

Another contentious article asked the town to fund maintenance of the Route 125 medians (a proposed $100,000). Members discussed whether the medians are state or town responsibility, the cost of contracting maintenance, and the precedent created if the town assumes upkeep of a state road corridor. The committee ultimately recommended the article to the warrant so voters can decide.

Several members urged clearer voter guidance. One member requested that the voters’ guide include per‑thousand tax impacts for each warrant article and clearer descriptions of whether a cost is recurring or a one‑time reserve; staff agreed to explore adding that information to the guide.

What happens next: the recommendations and warrant language will be finalized for the deliberative session and town ballot; the operating budget and recommended warrant articles will go before voters as provided by town warrant procedures. The committee asked staff to obtain the current status of the 2024 audit and to supply additional detail on reserve balances and the voter guide before deliberative sessions.