Consultants presented Westville’s comprehensive financial forecast (CFP), showing the general fund has a relatively strong cash position today but faces modest spenddowns in 2025–27. Adam of Wilcox summarized the CFP and the assumptions used for property tax growth, circuit‑breaker increases and transfers from other funds.

Adam said the town’s operating balance percentage remains healthy — he cited an expected ending operating balance of about 158% of annual operating expenses in 2025 — but that the town should expect some spenddown in the next two to three years under current assumptions. He told the council that, based on the LSA/DLGF allocations used in the model, the general fund’s estimated SEA‑related revenue reduction would be modest in absolute dollars: “for the general fund... '26 what that means would be somewhere around $26,000,” Adam said.

Rau and Adam highlighted one material timing and structural change: certified municipal income tax shares for public safety and other programmatic uses that towns now receive from the county are scheduled to end in 2028. The consultants said those recurring public‑safety costs would need to be budgeted from the general fund after that date unless the town adopts a municipal income tax or otherwise adjusts revenues or services.

The CFP included one modeled scenario in which Westville adopts a municipal income tax (modeled up to the 1.2% statutory cap). Under the consultants’ assumptions that scenario produced a projected positive cash inflow for the general fund in 2028; Adam reported a modeled positive cash flow of roughly $369,000 in 2028 if the town adopts the modeled income tax and shifts affected shares into its budget.

Council members asked about the effect of a new municipal income tax on residents and whether implementing a new local tax would simply replace county collections. Consultants reiterated that outcomes vary by community composition, whether overlapping units adopt their own taxes, and whether the county continues to distribute LIT the same way during the transition. No vote or formal decision was taken; the council directed staff to refine parcel‑level and fund‑level projections and to return with options for the 2026–28 budget cycle.

There was also discussion about the town’s fire contract and how the loss of county distributions could change budgeting for that contract. Staff and consultants said multiple options exist: shifting costs to utility customers via a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) from the utilities, using fund balances for one‑time differences, or adopting a municipal income tax to cover recurring costs. Consultants cautioned that any decision will require more detailed numbers and stakeholder outreach.