Merrimack manager outlines options after voters reject proposed budget

Town Manager Paul told the Merrimack Town Council on April 10 that voters defeated the town’s proposed 2025 budget on April 8 and that the council must now work from the default budget and present a revised appropriation on April 24.

The result leaves a funding gap Paul described as about $2,055,374 between the proposed appropriation and the default budget. "On April 8, the community spoke. Defeated our budget proposal, and voted in the default budget," he said, and asked the council for direction so staff can prepare a revised package for the April 24 meeting.

Why it matters: the council must decide which services and capital projects to preserve and which to cut before fiscal year-end. Paul said mandatory items — chiefly contracted wage increases already voted by residents in earlier years — will raise costs even under default, and called out roughly $500,000 in previously voted pay adjustments that he estimated could add about 10¢ to the tax rate.

Council priorities and options discussed included: trimming paving and deferring capital projects such as the town master plan; pausing the 800‑MHz radio tower project if federal or state grant timing slips; reassessing a one‑ton dump truck request; reviewing the town’s Nashua Transit contribution; and a careful evaluation of overtime and new staffing requests. Paul said some revenues and self‑supporting funds can be flat‑lined with limited impact, but other items are ‘‘needs‑based’’ and harder to cut.

Paul also warned councilors that a recent Supreme Court judgment against the town could require a large settlement. "I am in negotiations with the plaintiff in that case to try to figure out the total dollar value. That is why we have fund balance. And it's gonna be a significant, significant hit to fund balance," he said, adding that the town may seek an emergency appropriation from the state and that the potential exposure was measured in "millions of dollars." Paul said the town’s current available fund balance (which he described as intended for tax relief and one‑time expenses) will likely be constrained by that liability.

Councilors did not vote on a specific cut list at the April 10 meeting. Several members urged protecting long‑term infrastructure and public safety commitments while scrutinizing overtime and proposed new positions. The manager said staff will return with several alternative budgets and the council can schedule public hearings; he noted the council could hold an additional hearing on May 8 if it so chooses but must enact the revised appropriation before June 30 to be effective for FY2025.

Next steps: Paul will meet with department heads the week following April 10 and bring specific options on April 24. If the council asks for an additional public hearing, May 8 is available; otherwise the council may act at a regular meeting before the end of June.