The Haymarket Town Council found itself emerged in multiple philosophical debates Monday night as members struck out ideological positions concerning government spending, budgeting and possible demolition of dilapidated buildings near the town center.

Heated debates that included finger pointing, faces turning red and an occasional shout resulted in the town naming the mayor and town manager "gatekeepers" of the town budget as all authorized spending must be signed off by them.

Though mayor Pamela Stutz and manager Gene Swearingen already act in such a role, a motion by vice mayor John Cole passed unanimously that officially designated that the two must co-sign all checks between council meetings. In cases of emergency, only one signature would be necessary.

"If water is gushing through the roof and the mayor has to write a check" to make it stop, Cole said, would qualify as an emergency.

This came after town treasurer James Nardazay reported to the council that those in charge of 27 line items from the current budget exceeded their budget limits in some way. Swearingen provided a list of five items that needed immediate attention, including snow removal from the December and February blizzards that cost the town $12,075: $8,075 more than the $4,000 allocated in the budget.

Overages in the other four items -- maintenance contract for streets, public works and landscaping, vehicle maintenance for police cruisers, and a public defender -- totaled just over $3,000 combined.

Regarding the snow removal line item, Swearingen said, "I wouldn't recommend we change our budget for next year," though he noted blizzards are "something that's going to happen from time to time."

Every council member except for Bob Weir voted in favor of using extra money generated from Town Hall rental income to pay for the excess spending. Weir, his right thumb over his corresponding eye as he stared for a moment, abstained in protest, citing that he had asked staff since December to reconcile the problem.

"This budget is so out of whack," said Weir. "I'm not of the mind to do this piecemeal."

Stutz chided the overspending as something she's "been screaming" about throughout her terms as mayor and on council.

"You're preaching to the choir," said Weir.

Those two and the vice mayor dominated the debates as they typically though, with only occasional words in from council members Susan Edwards, David Leake, Mary Lou Scarbrough and Milt Kenworthy.

According to Cole, one of the reason why the town went over budget this year is because of the weakened economy, meaning the town had to tighten its figurative belt more so than normally.

"You have to have reason for everything in that budget," said the mayor.

Naradzay chimed that the town has "too many people" with the "ability to put the town in debt.

"We have no central control," he said before ticking off a list of who is accountable for various spending items.

"Technically," Nardazay added, "no one is supposed to get the town into debt (other) than the council."

Edwards tried to make the case for adding exceptions to the restrictive line-item rule that basically forces staff to live within its means month to month.

"You're going to have a police officer without a car to drive," she said.

Nardazay bluntly responded, "You can."

After telling the council its staffers need "guidelines," he turned to town attorney John Bennett and asked, "What's the purpose of the budget?"

"It's the gatekeeper," replied Bennett.

"Botta-bing," said Nardazay.

That led to Cole's motion, seconded by Edwards, to authorize only the mayor and manager to be the "gatekeepers" for spending.

Demolition

The other big debate focused on whether to issue an RFP (request for proposal) to demolition contractors to find out how much it would cost to potentially knock down and smooth over the so-called Blue House to the northeast of town hall, and the Red Rooster, in front of the town center.

Motions for both, offered by Weir, were rejected. Instead, the council will attempt to secure a bid -- currently estimated to be around $28,000 -- to redirect water lines away from the Blue House and toward Town Hall and the school building to the northwest of it. After that, the demolition option could potentially be back on the table.

Weir first offered the council issue a directive to the town manager to find out how much it would cost to tear down both buildings. That failed on a 4-2 vote with only Kenworthy joining him.

A second motion, recommended by Cole as a compromise of sorts, would have only been for the Blue House. He explicitly said the offering and RFP would not mean a decision was made and amounted more toward a fact-finding mission.

It turned out the only vote Cole managed to win over was his own, though it forced the mayor to weigh in on the matter.

"No!" she exclaimed during the roll call vote before her name was even called, voting right after Weir cast the final of the six council votes.

Leake said he opposed the directive because he viewed it as a waste of the town manager's time; Edwards and Stutz explained they wanted input from the town residents first.

"Perception is everything," said Edwards, adding that issuing an RFP is "not the proper way to do it."