Durham voters approve FY27 municipal budget after hourslong debate over staff pay and use of reserves

Durham voters on June 13 approved the select board'recommended FY27 municipal spending package, resolving a drawn-out debate over wages for town staff and how much of the town's savings to use to blunt this year's tax increase.

The select board'backed budget, adopted by voice vote, funds the town's municipal operations while the school and county assessments—together representing roughly 79% of local property-tax dollars—drive the majority of the overall tax burden. The board said the full FY27 package represents a 13.7% increase normalized year-over-year when schools and county assessments are included; the municipal portion rose by smaller margins.

Why it mattered: Much of the meeting's contention centered on employee compensation and the town's fund balance. The budget committee recommended a lower general-government appropriation and urged smaller or phased raises; supporters of the select board plan argued that multi-year wage studies showed Durham staff were paid below market and that modest raises were needed to retain essential employees.

"Our employees have been underpaid for years and years," Katherine Curtis, a longtime resident who identified herself during public comment, told the meeting. "We can't lose our municipal employees. They're already overworked." (Katherine Curtis is in the meeting speaker list and appears in the transcript.)

Select board chair Joe Roy and other backers said the select board'recommended wage adjustments were designed to move staff toward the local median, not to match larger nearby towns. Roy told voters the select board'proposal would increase pay in targeted positions and that, on a $400,000 home, choosing the select board'figure rather than the lower alternative would amount to roughly $93 more in annual taxes.

Opponents, including the budget committee and some residents, warned the town should not draw down reserves to mask recurring costs. "If you feel the staff should be paid more, then pay for it in your taxes," budget committee chair Milt Simon said during the debate, warning against using savings to defer the long-term cost.

The meeting first rejected the budget committee'recommended general-government figure, then approved the select board'recommended amount of $821,165 for article 5. Separately, on article 14 voters approved the budget committee'recommendation to authorize the select board to appropriate up to $350,000 from the general fund balance (the select board had proposed up to $500,000). The meeting counted a close result on article 14 and recorded a narrow margin in the counting exchange.

What comes next: Officials said the fund-balance draw will help limit the tax increase this year but warned it reduces the town's ability to smooth future spikes in costs. The select board said it aims to maintain an unassigned fund balance in the $2 million to $3.3 million range and proposed keeping the balance near $2.5 million after the appropriation.

The vote concluded a series of budget articles and left the town with approved appropriations for general government and related operating lines; residents and elected officials said the debate had clarified local trade-offs between tax relief and service continuity.