RANGELEY — Overdrafts and matching grants dominated the final public hearing for the annual town meeting Monday.

Voting will be held at the polls Tuesday, June 10, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the Town Office, 18 School St. Town meetings have been held by referendum at the polls since 2017.

“In light of recent stuff, with the proposed article stating all fiscal year overdrafts shall be closed from fund balance, does the board have a definition for overdraft?” resident Ethna Thompson asked, referring to Article B5 of the town meeting warrant. “Additionally, what dollar amount does the board believe is reasonable to be closed from fund balance without requiring further public discussion or vote, so that taxpayers can clearly understand the limits being set?”

Town Manager Joe Roach explained an overdraft, as he understood it, is any amount over what was approved for expenditures.

Last month, voters approved using fund balance money to address a Police Department overdraft. The overdraft was expected to be about $95,000 at the end of the fiscal year, June 30. Roach said previously that the projected overdraft is mostly attributed to securing a full-time police force and collective bargaining agreements being ratified after the current budget was set at the 2024 town meeting.

“Is it the opinion of management and the board that there shouldn’t be (an overdraft) dollar amount to fund, so that folks know there is some consideration when we are talking about overdrafts?” Thompson asked.

Roach said the town has historically been “pretty good” about not having overdrafts. The Police Department overdraft was a unique situation, he added.

Thompson suggested the board and management consider clarifying the article with a funding cap so that “a constituent can clearly understand.”

“In other municipalities, this question is not usually left open ended,” she said. “I understand the intent. It is just a consideration, a thoughtful process going forward. The key factor is we shouldn’t be going over budget.”

The challenge, Roach said, is that at times overdrafts are not discovered until near the end of the fiscal year, and sometimes not until after the town meeting.

Thompson then addressed Article B13, which if passed would give Roach and the board authorization to apply for and accept grant money. She asked if there was money set aside for any matching fund requirements, should a grant be pursued?

“How do you handle funding for grants throughout the fiscal year, and matching funds that are almost always a necessity?” she asked.

Roach explained that oftentimes grants would cover something the town had already budgeted for.

“This is especially true for safety grants for items such as cones or vests,” he said. “This is something the town was going to purchase anyway. Typically, we try to plan ahead. It is either earmarked or there is a small enough amount to cover it in the budget,” he said.

Future options could include using tax increment financing money, if appropriate, or to create departmental reserve accounts for matching grant funds, he added.

Roach said there was not enough time to research either of Thompson’s points ahead of town meeting.

Although no clear action was taken by the board, selectmen indicated that both points could be addressed in the future.

The proposed $12 million budget for the 2026 fiscal year reflects an increase of about $800,000 over this fiscal year. The general fund unassigned balance is expected to be between $5.2 million and $5.7 million by June 30. Selectmen have recommended using $1.375 million in unassigned fund to offset the tax commitment. 

In addition to budgetary and business articles, there are several town officers to be elected in June: two selectmen, one Parks Commission member, one Regional School Unit 78 director, two Sewer Commission members and two Budget Committee members. All are for three-year terms.