The Washington County Budget Advisory Committee commenced its review of the fiscal year 2027 draft budget in Machias under notable strain, as panel members expressed sharp dissatisfaction with county commissioners for passing along a municipal spending blueprint that lacks any preliminary reductions.
The spending package presented to the advisory panel totals $17.1 million. This figure marks an increase of approximately $3.7 million, representing a 27.6 percent expansion over the county’s final approved budget from the previous fiscal year.
Local property taxpayers would bear the primary brunt of the proposed figures if the plan were adopted without substantial revisions. Under the current unadjusted draft, roughly $15 million would have to be generated directly through taxation, representing an increase of $3.4 million compared to the property taxes levied in the prior cycle.
The steep trajectory follows significant fiscal expansion in recent years. Between fiscal years 2025 and 2026, county expenditures climbed by $1.8 million, while the total sum raised via property taxes increased by $1.5 million over that same twelve-month window.
Committee Chairman Brian Schuth, who also serves as the city manager of Eastport, opened the proceedings by clarifying the nature of the documentation before the panel. He reminded members that the binder of figures—commonly referred to by the committee as the budget "book"—merely compiles the unfiltered funding requests submitted by county department heads rather than formal executive proposals endorsed by the county commissioners.
Rather than deliberating and integrating specific cuts into the preliminary budget before forwarding it, Commissioners David Burns and Billy Howard submitted separate memoranda. Schuth characterized these individual submissions as "wish lists" detailing proposed cost-cutting ideas that the commissioners chose not to implement themselves, instead leaving the difficult decisions to the advisory panel.
The recommendations forwarded in the commissioners' memos targeted several operational areas that have been discussed in previous sessions without being finalized. Among these options were proposals to scale back vehicle acquisitions by purchasing fewer cruisers for the Washington County Sheriff's Office and trimming expenditures associated with the county's K-9 program.
Wider public safety operations also face scrutiny within the draft spending documents. The proposals include recommendations for substantial reductions to emergency and law enforcement divisions, with one commissioner advocating for spending cuts totaling $1.2 million, while another commissioner supported less severe reductions directed at the Sheriff's Office and the Regional Communications Center.
Schuth expressed profound frustration with the procedural approach taken by the county's executive leaders. He noted that this marks the second consecutive year in which the commissioners publicly distanced themselves from the draft spending plan while simultaneously advancing it to the advisory committee without adjustments, a practice he said unnecessarily complicates the advisory panel's responsibilities.
The chairman emphasized that commissioners had ample opportunities during their regular public meetings to debate, draft, and formally enact their proposed adjustments, yet they ultimately chose not to bring those measures forward for official action before handing off the document.
Committee Vice Chairman Ben Edwards, who serves concurrently as the vice chairperson of the Machias Select Board, contextualized the ongoing budget review against the county's prolonged financial distress. Edwards noted that when he joined the advisory committee during the prior budget cycle, the county was confronting the most precarious financial circumstances in recent memory.
Recalling the county's fiscal challenges, Edwards highlighted that Washington County had exhausted its cash reserves, experienced an escalating reliance on tax anticipation notes (TANs), struggled with municipal audits that were delayed by years, faced public rejection of a panel-backed bond measure, and contended with persistent uncertainty regarding its ability to meet payroll and vendor obligations.
Even after the advisory panel implemented significant spending curbs during the last budget cycle, the final approved plan still grew by 17 percent year over year. Edwards noted that while various municipal departments received considerably less funding than they initially requested, they nevertheless managed to maintain operations throughout the fiscal year.
However, Edwards stressed that the committee must now examine the real-world operational toll exacted by those previous fiscal constraints. He noted that the panel needs to hear directly from department leaders regarding how past reductions affected overtime requirements, staffing turnover, and overall coverage across county services.
Acknowledging the contentious nature of trimming municipal requests, Edwards and Schuth both conceded that the advisory process would require tough choices that may not win widespread praise, prompting lighthearted remarks from fellow panel members about competing for the title of least popular official.
Schuth emphasized that despite the procedural hurdles, the committee's central duty remains finding a realistic balance between the financial resources requested by department heads and the fiscal limits of the county's funding capacity.
Committee member Harry "Sonny" Beal Jr. echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that the panel holds a fundamental responsibility to the public to construct and deliver a finalized spending plan that accurately addresses the genuine operational needs of Washington County.
(0)