Plaistow voters to decide $13.3 million operating budget after hours of debate and failed cuts

Town officials and residents spent more than three hours debating proposed changes to Plaistow’s $13,306,304 operating budget before the session ended with the article placed on the official ballot as written. The deliberations included motions to reduce the budget by more than $1.3 million, a proposal to apply $1.5 million from the town’s unassigned fund balance and a last-minute motion to add $102,000 for a statistical assessment. All amendments failed and the main article will be on the ballot in March.

The discussion began after the warrant article was read aloud and a motion was made to put the operating budget on the ballot as posted. Resident Holly Patterson (maker of an amendment) proposed inserting language to use $1.5 million of the town’s unassigned fund balance to offset taxation; she later withdrew and refiled the motion in a revised form. Several other voters then proposed deeper cuts, including a 10% reduction and a motion to return to last year’s budget level.

Budget committee members and town staff warned the assembly about mechanical limits on how the town handles appropriations. Town Manager and Finance Director Greg Colby explained that the operating article sets the single “bottom line” appropriation for the year; line-item allocations are managed by the governing body after the vote. Colby also said the town’s unassigned fund balance was $2,693,006 as of Dec. 31, 2024 and noted that after using $400,000 at tax-rate-setting the town’s retained amount stood at about 6.47%, just above the Department of Revenue Administration’s (DRA) recommended floor.

Proposals to cut the budget included a motion by Ryan Labrecque to reduce the appropriation to $11,000,009.75 and a separate motion to set the budget equal to last year’s $12,714,410. The motion to reduce to $12,714,410 was counted: 16 in favor and 31 opposed, and it failed. A separate motion to increase the posted budget by $102,000 (to pay for a statistical assessing update after the town’s assessing firm gave notice of ending its contract) was also voted on; the moderators recorded 24 in favor and 27 opposed, and that amendment failed as well.

On several occasions speakers urged caution. Budget committee members noted their 5–1 recommendation prior to the meeting. Select Board members and town staff cautioned that sharp reductions could force the town to cut services or rely on short-term borrowing to meet cash-flow obligations (for example, to meet school or county payments while awaiting tax collections). Fire and police officials told voters that some recent budget increases covered contractually required salary and staffing adjustments.

After the final procedural votes, Moderator Bob Harbor announced that Article P‑25‑02 would appear on the ballot as posted and the article was restricted from reconsideration.

The outcome means voters at the second session on March 11 will cast the final, binding ballot vote on the $13,306,304 operating budget.