- Accelerate debt repayment to lower taxes (e.g., stop paying $0.21 per $100 of assessment toward debt service)?
- Or invest—accepting some risk—in projects that could generate future revenues?
In theory, you can try to do it all. In practice, a tight budget forces choices.
A concrete benchmark: a day-to-day example
You have a low-rate mortgage (1.89%) maturing in December 2025 and likely renewing around 4%. Your budget barely covers essentials (food, energy, maintenance, taxes, fuel, repairs). You can just manage one trip per year.
Your options:
- Work more (evenings/weekends) to maintain the same lifestyle;
- Cut the annual trip;
- Borrow more (increase the mortgage);
- Combine these levers;
- Rare boosts: a grant or a gift.
The municipality’s levers
The September 16, 2025 PowerPoint deck mentions non-property-tax revenues, grants, and private donations. Concretely, the municipality can:
- Increase revenues
- Citizen services (e.g., municipal beach)
- Service contracts (e.g., snow removal on Route 108)
- Other fee-for-service activities (e.g., dock rentals)
- Pursue grants
Now essential, but time-consuming, rigorous, and uncertain. - Accept private donations
Useful, but often conditional (refrigerated rink, master plan, etc.). - Reduce expenses
Tighter spending control, stricter purchasing and capital policies. - Take on new debt
Justified if a project’s net return exceeds the borrowing cost—and if execution capacity is there.
Where do we stand?
Cash-flow pressure
Struggling to cover principal + interest? → Cut non-essentials and renegotiate rates/terms.
Debt cost vs. expected return
If debt costs 5% and a project yields > 5% net (including risk and OPEX), revenue growth is defensible; otherwise, prioritize savings.
Cost discipline
Eliminate waste and “extras” before touching services that generate revenues or avoid future costs.
Time horizon
- 0–12 months: quick savings, freeze major purchases, better procurement, hire freeze/slowdown, contract renegotiations.
- 18–36 months: projects that broaden the revenue base (smarter pricing, new services, partnerships).
Execution capacity & risks
Revenue growth takes time and is uncertain; poorly targeted cuts can undermine services—and revenues.
A practical rule
- Cash squeeze? → start with targeted cuts, optimizations, and renegotiations.
- Investment return > borrowing cost? → investing can make sense—with transparency, risk management, and control of recurring costs.
Example: snow removal on Route 108
A April 12, 2021 council minute says Route 108 snow removal is “usually profitable” and announces a snow removal report at the next meeting. Three operators are trained. No formal report has been found since.
Financing trucks to “cover our costs”
Buying trucks today costs money. At an average rate of 5.7% on a balance of $3,981,833, annual interest is $226,964. Ideally, do a solid cost–benefit analysis before proceeding.
$3,981,833 × 0.057 = $226,964.48
Invest or reduce: the decision is real
Yes, you can defer part of the debt to acquire trucks and generate new revenues. But that pushes out debt reduction—and tax relief for residents. Good or bad, it depends on what citizens want. That’s essentially what happened between 2023 and 2024 (as noted in the Sept. 6 and Oct. 1, 2025 newsletters).
The problem is the message sent to citizens
From the Sept. 6, 2025 newsletter (Mayor Davis-Gerrish): promises of exiting the crisis, reducing debt, and eliminating it within five years; then using surpluses to improve services and/or lower taxes.
“We are finally emerging from the financial crisis that threatened our very existence. Too much of our annual revenues went to debt service, complicating our hopes of lower taxes and a stable future… We reversed the deficits that led to our indebtedness, then reduced the debt itself…”
Debt trend
Please note that we are not referring to net debt, which includes assets and liabilities
| Year | Opening balance | Closing balance | Capital repayment (annual) | Interest (annual, 5.7%) |
| 2019 | 6 909 760 $ | 0 $ | 0 $ | |
| 2020 | 6 909 760 $ | 6 235 162 $ | 674 598 $ | 374 630 $ |
| 2021 | 6 235 162 $ | 5 494 778 $ | 740 384 $ | 334 303 $ |
| 2022 | 5 494 778 $ | 4 726 395 $ | 768 383 $ | 291 303 $ |
| 2023 | 4 726 395 $ | 4 043 170 $ | 683 225 $ | 249 933 $ |
| 2024 | 4 043 170 $ | 3 981 833 $ | 61 337 $ | 228 713 $ |
| Total | 2 927 927 $ | 1 478 882 $ |
Table showing the evolution of the debt balance, capital repaid, and accrued interest.
Debt evolution (2019–2024) — figures cited by Mayor Davis-Gerrish on Sept. 6, 2025:
- 2020: $6,235,162
- 2019: $6,909,760
- 2021: $5,494,778
- 2022: $4,726,395
- 2023: $4,043,170
- 2024: $3,981,833 → net decrease: $61,337 (4,043,170 − 3,981,833)
Oct. 1, 2025 newsletter:
- Principal repaid in 2024: $736,000 (page 26, line 13 of the financial statements).
Note: the reports had not yet been published and made public at that time. - New 2024 debt: $665,000 for two snow-removal trucks;
- Hence the limited net decrease (≈ $61,000).
Ethical—more than financial—concerns
The issue isn’t that there was no repayment; it’s the implied message that repayment was significant—while the 2024 net effect was modest—communicated in a municipal newsletter 13 days before the election period began. On top of that, a citizen who asked questions on the topic was served a formal notice by bailiff.
