Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harpers Ferry council adopts FY26 budget revision and reviews town finances, reserves
Summary
The Harpers Ferry Town Council approved revision 1 to the fiscal 2026 general fund budget after a detailed briefing from the town finance officer on revenue sources, reserves and timelines for levies and audits.
Get email alerts on the Budget And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harpers Ferry, W.Va. — The Harpers Ferry Town Council voted unanimously July 29 to adopt revision 1 of the town’s fiscal year 2026 general fund budget after a lengthy briefing on municipal revenues, reserves and oversight requirements.
Finance officer Debbie (last name not specified in transcript) led the presentation and told the council the town’s budget — about $2.1–$2.2 million in scale — is funded by a mix of municipal taxes, parking revenue, business-and-occupancy (B&O) taxes, property tax distributions from the county, state remittances such as oil-and-gas severance and excise taxes, grants and leases such as cell tower rents. She said the town had carried forward restricted and assigned balances for specific projects and maintained an unassigned fund balance for general use.
The revision was approved by roll-call vote 6–0. The formal resolution directing the change states the council will submit the revision to the State Auditor’s Office for review as required by state law.
Debbie said the council had chosen a conservative budgeting approach — ‘‘underestimate income, overestimate expenses’’ — and reported the town still had roughly four months of operating reserves after the adjustments. She reviewed four fund-balance categories used in town accounting: restricted (statute-limited), committed (contracted projects), assigned (council intention) and unassigned (general carryforward). She noted a separate escrow account held $250,000 related to a prior street negotiation and that hotel-occupancy revenue is restricted by state rules for specified uses such as tourism promotion, arts and historic preservation.
On revenue timing and compliance, Debbie explained property tax distributions come monthly from the county, some state and lottery receipts are quarterly, and other streams vary (for example, racetrack-related receipts are distributed weekly after state thresholds are met). She described the town’s timeline for the annual budget and levy process — the town adopts a levy estimate that goes to the State Auditor’s Office and publishes required notices; the fiscal year runs July 1–June 30 and state deadlines require certain mid-July and late-July reporting for specific funds.
The council heard that the town had in fiscal 25 directed cell-tower rental revenue into the general fund and, on a one-time basis, into water utility support to address cash-flow issues. Debbie said future transfers of that revenue to the water utility must be approved by council each fiscal year. The finance officer said legal counsel had reviewed options previously and that the town’s authority to move money between the general fund and the municipally owned water utility is constrained and, in some cases, may require voter approval.
Council members asked about transparency to water ratepayers after the one-time transfer of cell-tower revenue; several councilmembers suggested a customer communication be included with upcoming billing or public outreach tied to the water meter project. Debbie said the finance office would coordinate with the water commission and billing operations to consider a public notice.
Debbie summarized internal and external controls for municipal finance: monthly council review of reports, accounting contractor Holiday Young performing reconciliations and preparing reports, segregation of duties among staff, and oversight by the State Auditor’s Office. She explained the $750,000 federal threshold that triggers a single audit and said the town had not exceeded that threshold in the most recent completed year.
The motion to adopt Budget Revision 1 was made from the floor and seconded; the roll-call votes recorded in the minutes were Chris Craig (aye), Jesse Veil (aye), Christian Petrocones (yes), Storm Nicastanzo (yes), and the mayor (aye), yielding a 6–0 approval. The resolution language notes the revision is subject to the State Auditor’s review as ex officio chief inspector of public offices.
The discussion at the July 29 meeting also previewed more detailed budget materials that will be available to council and the public, and Debbie invited councilmembers to consult the finance office and accounting contractor for line-item detail ahead of future meetings.
Council action - Formal action: Adopted Budget Revision 1 for FY26 (general fund). Outcome: approved, roll-call 6–0. The resolution directs the recorder to file the revision with the State Auditor’s Office.
Why it matters The revision updates carryforward balances and adjusts the town’s contingency and assigned funds. The council’s conservative approach and the stated four-month operating reserve are central to short-term fiscal stability and to decisions on whether to support utility operations with one-time transfers in future years.
What’s next Debbie and the budget-and-finance committee will continue to review line-item detail, monitor parking and B&O receipts versus projections and present further revisions if material changes occur.

