One council member’s concerns with Dillon’s 2026 budget caused the Town Council to add conditions to its passage at a Tuesday, Dec. 2, regular meeting.

The Dillon Town Council reviewed a draft of the 2026 budget in October after holding several budget planning and review sessions in meetings starting in August. Council member Barbara Richard raised concerns with the draft budget at several meetings, including on Dec. 2.

Richard asked a few questions to which town staff provided simple answers. When Richard asked about a value listed for transfers out of the general fund seemingly being too high, finance director Mary Kay Perrotti replied it was because of a transfer of marina debt from the general to capital fund.

Other of Richard’s questions included one about how staff calculated overhead costs for concerts and why there was a “big jump” in tap fees. Events and recreation director Jessie Klehfoth explained that costs listed under “concert overhead” have more direct connections to concerts, while some costs under “general events operations,” like recreation department salaries, still contribute to concerts. Public works director Scott O’Brien explained that the tap fee increase comes from the town following the recommendation of a recent water rate study.

Some of Richard’s concerns prompted longer discussions. The first was about a column in the budget labeled “2025 Budget.” The draft Perrotti presented to the council pulled values from the town’s audited 2025 budget for that column, but Richard argued the values should come from the 2025 approved budget, which came before the audit.

“The budget is what was actually approved,” Richard said.

Richard said she found only 14 entries had differences between the audited budget and approved budget values. Perrotti said she had spoken with the town’s auditor, who had no issue with using audited budget figures in the “2025 Budget” column, but Richard said the Governmental Accounting Standard Board requires those values be from the original approved budget.

Perrotti and Richard made points back and forth until Mayor Carolyn Skowyra suggested they continue the topic to a future meeting. Perrotti said that would not be an option because the state deadline for municipalities to approve their budgets is Dec. 8, which is before the next council meeting.

The conversation moved on to other of Richard’s concerns, but Skowyra brought up the audited vs. approved budget issue again later in the meeting. Perrotti called the issue a matter of presentation, but she said the change would be “very simple.” The council agreed to include a stipulation in its approval of the budget that the “2025 Budget” column’s values be changed to those from the original approved budget.

Richard also asked questions about the police budget revolving around whether or not Keystone will pay its “fair share” in 2026. She previously raised the issue at the Oct. 14 draft budget review, and Dillon Keystone Police Chief Cale Osborn said in that meeting that the costs are not yet split evenly between the towns, but the agreement creating the joint department accounted for the cost sharing to become more equal over time and the cost sharing is proceeding “as designed.”

Osborn and Perrotti gave similar responses to Richard’s questions Dec. 2. 

“When you look at the scope of the entirety of what’s going on, they’re paying more than their share,” Osborn said. “They’ve been really good partners, and they’ve done everything that we’ve asked them to do.”

The total police cost in the 2026 budget, $4.3 million, includes costs that will be paid by Keystone, which will pay Dillon $1.4 million for police services, meaning Dillon’s contribution is budgeted to be $2.8 million. The police department’s expenses in 2024, the last year before it created the joint force with Keystone, were $2.6 million.

Osborn said the increases to Dillon’s cost of policing have to do with “operations in general.” He specifically referenced increased costs for the department’s communications center, staff raises and healthcare.

“We (were) going to incur that cost regardless of if we (became) a joint police department or not,” Osborn said.

Another one of Richard’s concerns led to a second condition on the budget’s approval. She pointed out figures on the combined balance sheets — 2026 beginning fund balances and 2025 ending fund balances — that should have, but did not, match. Richard said it “should be an easy fix,” and Perrotti agreed.

The council approved the budget with the conditions that the errors on the combined balance sheet be fixed and the “2025 Budget” column’s values be changed to those from the original approved budget.