Main menu:

 

Subscribe by email:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Categories

Archive

Site search



Finance Committee on the Capital Budget, More

(Black text is mostly objective, red text is mostly subjective in nature.)

We had a productive meeting tonight, and even finished 4 minutes early – 9:56PM.

The first item was a hearing about Article 55, about creating a committee to look into trying to add Arlington as a stop on the “Liberty Bus” for tourists. I think we asked for the hearing because we thought this was a funding article, but it turns out it was only a committee, not an appropriation. With no money involved, it was a quick hearing.

The personnel budget was up next. This budget includes a new position at about $40,000 salary who will be responsible for managing the health insurance questions, answers, and administration in town. This involves things like helping employees and retirees with questions and making sure that the monthly billing accurately reflects the monthly enrollment. (Births, marriages, spouse job changes, etc. all lead to a churn that needs to be tracked).

When I heard about the new position I asked if there was any sort of quantitative backing for it. Is there any record of the number of walk-in visitors? Nubmer of phone calls? Number of missed enrollments? Back-of-the-envelope demonstration of the savings to the town, or an outline of the services being provided? I didn’t see one. When I need to convince my boss that we need a new hire, I have to make the case. I have to do the homework and explain the need and the costs, the pros and the cons. The decision to hire or not hinges on whether or not it can be justified.

It frustrates me that the town does not make decisions this way. I had the same complaint last year about the decision to create a new revolving fund and hire someone from that fund. That position may be a good one. This new insurance poistion might be a good one. But we don’t have the data or rationale to make the decision!

There’s another element to this that raises the stakes considerably. $40,000 is the salary. But, the town will pay 85% of the person’s health care, and pay for the person’s retirement, and pay for the person’s health care while they are retired. Really, we’re talking about adding something like $100,000 to this year’s budget.

One final point: the salary cost for this position won’t appear in the personnel budget. It’s being billed to the health insurance budget. I can see where the data might justify this, but again, the data isn’t really there to evaluate.

The budget was approved with two dissenting votes, including mine. (15-2 I think, but you’ll have to double-check the minutes).

The Capital Planning Committee was up next. They gave a detailed presentation that, with questions, lasted longer than an hour. They reviewed historical spending, talked about planning philosphy, and reviewed several of this year’s individual line items. We reviewed spending on libraries, schools, sewer and water, roads, fire, and police. There was also discussion of the Veteran’s Rink.

The Capital Committee made it clear that it did not think that the anticipated capital expeditures could be covered by the enterprise fund. This will be an issue for a while, unfortunately.

The capital budget was recommended unanimously.

The committee discussed Article 61. We reviewed a handout from Charlie Foskett. The gist of the issue is that the budgeting for health care is as close as it reasonably can be to actual expenditures. Furthermore, even if you try to correct for the inaccuracies, the budget doesn’t improve. Voted no action unanimously.

The Public Safety Support Services budget was passed unanimously.

The Veteran’s budget is up again because of increased veteran’s aid. The presumed causes are Iraq and increasing number of retirees. Passed unanimously.