Budget Review Committee Special Meeting - September 2, 2026: Suggestions for FY28 Budget Presentation

The Budget Review Committee held a special meeting on September 2, 2026, to discuss suggestions for improving the presentation of the Fiscal Year 2028 budget. No actions were taken; the committee provided feedback to the administration. Members of the committee and other aldermen shared their views on format, content, transparency, and process. The CFO and administration were asked to review the suggestions and report back.

Discussion Items

• Budget Delivery Date: Multiple members requested the budget be delivered earlier than in the past. Alderman Kelly noted that early May felt less stressful than early June. Alderman Sullivan reviewed 11 years of data and found an average delivery date of April 17. Some cautioned that earlier delivery could mean less complete year-to-date spending data.
• Data Columns and Format: Alderman O'Brien emphasized the need for five columns: prior year adopted, prior year available, prior year spend as of March 31, current year proposal, and current year mayor's proposal. Alderman Kelly suggested including a three- or five-year running average of actuals rather than just the prior year. Alderman Smith requested year-to-date expenses and percentage increases over prior year. Alderman Johnson preferred three- or five-year averages but also wanted actuals.
• Transparency and Narrative: Several members asked for clearer explanations of line item moves between departments. Alderman Greg requested flagging new line items with an asterisk and separating controllable vs. uncontrollable costs. Alderman Kelly and Alderman Johnson wanted narratives on operational changes, staffing, infrastructure, and other contract services. Alderman Morgan suggested a maintenance request system to track small repairs.
• Staffing and Salary Information: Alderman Johnson advocated for listing all employees with names and salaries, as the school district does, for transparency. Alderman O'Brien opposed publishing names, citing potential harassment of employees. Alderman Teebow and Alderman Ryan also opposed names, arguing that positions and salary ranges provide sufficient transparency. Alderman Sullivan supported including staffing levels and open positions.
• Digital vs. Printed Budget: Alderman Sullivan praised the digital budget book. Alderman Clay noted that page numbers in the digital version do not match the printed version, causing confusion for the public. Alderman Kelly expressed preference for a three-ring binder to allow insertion of corrected pages ("goldenrod pages").
• Year-to-Date Spending: Alderman Clay requested that departments present their year-to-date spending when they appear before the committee. Alderman Teebow noted that year-to-date figures can be misleading if departments have not yet expensed committed funds; he wanted departments to explain upcoming obligations.
• Tax Revenue and Rate Information: Alderman Sullivan asked for a line showing how much tax revenue would need to be collected to cover the operating budget as proposed, and the value of one percent on the tax rate. Others noted that the tax rate cannot be known until the county budget and other factors are final.
• Public Hearing Timing: Alderman Clay suggested holding the public hearing earlier in the process to hear public input before department presentations. Alderman Teebow preferred the hearing at the end so the public can hear all department details first.
• Meeting Scheduling: Alderman Kelly proposed doubling up departments on fewer nights to reduce the number of meetings, but Alderman Johnson cautioned against more than two departments per night to avoid information overload.
• State Legislative Impact: Alderman Kelly suggested a memo in January/February summarizing state legislation that could affect the budget. Alderman Clay noted that state legislation is introduced in January and progresses through May/June, making early awareness valuable. Alderman Greg offered to help others track bills online.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Bill Ferrio (35 Indian Rock Road) advocated for using spreadsheets instead of paper budgets for better filtering and analysis. He recommended reporting trends rather than averages. He opposed publishing employee names with salaries, arguing it would anger people and that salaries are not adjustable by the committee. He also urged the committee to ask more specific numeric questions rather than policy questions during department presentations.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken. The committee directed CFO John Enright and the administration to review the suggestions made during the meeting and provide feedback to the committee at a future meeting.
• Motion to adjourn was approved at 8:33 PM.
• Additionally, Alderman Morgan announced a training session on conflicts of interest and ethics for local officials, proposed by the New Hampshire Municipal Authority, to be held November 7 at 7 PM.