At our recent City Council meeting, we began discussions on the 2026 budget. The City Manager is working with department heads to develop a proposed budget for the council’s review. I believe it is important for the council to provide input early in the process so that the manager can focus on areas that have the support of a majority of the council, rather than spending significant time on proposals unlikely to move forward.
A key concern in our discussions was the impact of taxation on residents. We considered not only the city’s budget but also the upcoming school budget — excluding additional warrant articles — and the Sullivan County budget, which is expected to rise due to bond payments for the nursing home project.
One major point of discussion was the Claremont Savings Bank Community Center. When the facility opened in 2012, the initial agreement was that taxpayer contributions would remain under $500,000. However, in the current 2025 budget, that cost has increased to nearly $700,000, raising concerns in the community. Given this, we have requested the City Manager to return with a budget proposal that aligns more closely with the original expectations. While inflation is a factor, city revenues should also be increasing at a similar rate — but they have not. Additionally, membership at the Community Center has declined from nearly 1,800 members to around 1,400, a drop of roughly 23%. Should taxpayers be responsible for making up the difference? This is a question we need to examine carefully.
Another area of focus was the Planning and Development Office. The 2025 budget included a new position for an Assistant Director to support economic development. However, after eight months, the position remains unfilled. Given this, the suggestion was made to remove it from the budget moving forward.
As with most budget cycles, new positions are often proposed to improve department efficiency. However, the consensus this year is to avoid adding new positions. One exception may be the Police Department. In recent years, the council and the Police Department agreed to reduce the number of funded positions due to hiring challenges. Now, with the department nearly fully staffed within its existing budget, we may see an increase in funding — but this would be to restore previously cut positions, not to add new ones.
Infrastructure remains a priority. Three years ago, we faced a paving and sidewalk budget with no available funds, an unsustainable situation. Since then, we have gradually increased funding, and we now allocate around $900,000 annually — not including work tied to water and sewer projects. The council has requested that at a minimum, the 2026 budget maintains the 2025 funding level.
On a positive note, the Governor’s proposed budget includes slight increases in rooms and meals tax revenue for the city, along with level funding for road and bridge grants. Additionally, while the Governor’s initial budget proposed closing the Claremont District Court, Finance Chair Peter Leishman successfully referenced a 2010 study on court closures, helping to prevent this move — for now.
While this focuses on the city budget, I encourage all residents to participate in the upcoming school budget vote on March 11. Your voice matters. If you have thoughts on the budget process or any other concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
