East Hampton board trims capital items, adopts amended capital and operating budgets and forwards a reduced BOE request to referendum

The East Hampton board spent more than two hours negotiating how to reduce the 2026–27 budget after a failed referendum and heavy public comment, ultimately approving an amended capital plan and forwarding revised operating budgets and a Board of Education request to the town council and referendum.

The initial motion to approve a capital improvement plan that included removing certain vehicles, deferring the middle-school air-conditioning project, reducing road maintenance by $250,000 and adding a $10 million road-reconstruction fund to be financed through bonding was introduced early in the discussion. Board members extensively debated whether a bonding proposal should appear in the capital recommendation, noting bonding requires its own authorization process and would raise the mill rate if approved by voters. The original capital motion was read and put to a vote; the chair announced, "Motion did not pass. 5-2."

Following the failed vote, members negotiated a revised funding plan that relied on a mix of debt-financing, smaller capital reductions, and use of projected surplus to cover several one-time projects. The board approved an amended capital improvement budget of $2,364,530 (transfer from current taxes $947,800) incorporating the agreed changes; the vote was recorded as 5 in favor, 2 opposed.

On the operating side the board debated town government cuts and where to find $100,000–$200,000 in reductions without compromising essential services. Public safety staff warned that eliminating currently vacant police positions would increase overtime costs and strain response capacity: Police Chief Dennis Westcott said cutting two additional vacant positions would reduce staffing from 18 to 15 officers and make it difficult to maintain two-officer minimums per shift. "Please don't cut these two positions," he said, noting hiring and training timelines that reduce short-term staffing flexibility.

The board voted to approve a revised town general government budget of $19,699,909 that included specific changes: eliminating one land-use clerk position while implementing an assistant planner/enforcement role, charging 50% of a parks-and-rec program coordinator to program revenues, removing an unfilled senior-center driver position, reducing contingency by $10,000, and reducing transfer-station operations unless the council raises fees to restore service levels.

Finally the board recommended a Board of Education budget of $39,900,937 (a $250,000 reduction from the original proposal) to the town council for the referendum; that motion also passed 5-2. Board members and residents urged turnout and clearer communication to voters ahead of the referendum.

What happens next: the board’s recommendations will be forwarded to the town council and included with referendum materials; several funding choices (notably any bonding question) would require separate voter approval before being enacted.