Finance Committee Meeting Minutes 1/13/21

Finance Committee Meeting   January 13, 2021

This was a joint meeting with the Select board 

Jon Sylbert, Michele Miller, and Rebecca Wolin present

Don went back to the chairing of the joint meetings. 

He felt it would be impossible for him to be in a meeting with 2 chairs and thus a motion was made to select one person to chair the meeting.  The motion was seconded by Steve. Michele suggested that the chair be rotated each week between the Select Board Chair and the Finance Committee Chair  Rebecca commented that in the past 2 years she was on the finance committee joint meetings were not so formal to have only 1 chair and in the spirit of cooperation that 2 chairs would run the meeting.  Don disagreed.   A motion was made to amend the motion to state that Don chairs this meeting today and to rotate to Rebecca next week.  The motion was seconded; Don then withdrew his original motion.  John no, Steve, yes, Rebecca no, Jon S, yes, Don, yes and Michele, yes.  The motion passed 2 -1 with John W. voting no on the Select Board and 2 – 1 with Rebecca voting no on the Finance Committee.

We meet with Shawn on the transfer station budget

1. Don informed everyone that he did inquire from Shawn how much it would cost to pave the parking lot area from the bins to the building.  Shawn has not had time to get that number so this was tabled.
2. Discussion ensued about the dramatic increased usage of the transfer station and since COVID began and more 2^nd homeowners have moved here permanently.  Shawn confirmed that on certain months usage more than doubled since March.
3. Rebecca wanted to know who set the fees for the transfer station and why they were lowered last year.  She was informed that this was a select board decision.  Steve stated that when the fees are discussed for FY22 they will definitely take into account that the fees might need to be raised. Melissa Noe pointed out that the fees collected do not offset the cost of operations as this is not setup as an enterprise fund, fees return to the general fund which ultimately becomes free cash.
4. Property related services: Rebecca inquired as to the increase.  Shawn explained that it has to do with required inspections and the fact that the person who had been doing them retired and the firms available are more expensive.
5. Hauling and container rental: The increase reflects the year 3 increase to our hauling contract as well as the increased usage.  Rebecca inquired if we would be putting this out to bid next year.  Shawn noted that by law this is exempt from procurement laws and ultimately it would be up to the Select Board at the time. Rebecca commented that all these types of contracts should be put out to bid regardless if it is the law or not.
6. Uniforms: Rebecca inquired why we were buying the attendants that would cost $3000 – as in past years there was never a line item in the budget. .  Shawn explained that in the past this expense was included  in the  DPW budget

Jon S. suggested that budgets shouldn’t be voted on yet as a “final decision” as they may be subject to change once the budget as a whole has been evaluated. A motion was made by the Finance Committee to submit this budget as it stands for final consideration when the budget is prepared as a whole. The motion was seconded. John W., yes, Steve, yes, Don, yes, Jon S, yes, Rebecca, yes, Michele, Yes.  The motions passed unanimously by both boards.

It was pointed out that there was a list of one time purchases needed that totaled $2,800 and was included in the property service line item. Rebecca made a motion to reduce the $7,800 by $2,800. John silent, Steve, keep in as this involves public safety and where a majority of the public visits (no), Don, no. Jon, no (keep in), Michele, no. The motion did not pass and the $2,800 remains for now in the property services line.

 We then met with Jeremia Pollard, Town Counsel to discuss the following with regard to his proposed FY22 budget:

1. Jon S. inquired whether we should be putting counsel services out to bid and if there is a survey of what surrounding towns are paying. M. Noe was asked to add this information to her survey, she agreed. The retainer is for normal, municipal activities.
2. Legal expenses (separate from normal responsibilities): Jeremia recommends we increase this line item due to the two active cases.  Rebecca suggested changing the title to “Litigation fees and expenses” instead of legal expenses to make it clearer that this covers litigation above and beyond the normal scope of work.
3. Jeremia explained that he felt the town would lose the 2 cases before the court now and he would need the additional money to appeal the cases

A motion was made to submit this budget as it stands for final consideration when the budget is prepared as a whole. The motion was seconded.  The motion passed unanimously by both boards.

Point of order question for Jeremia from John W; John W. inquired if there is a state statute that allows the Select Board to make votes on budgetary items, he thinks that the Select Board voting on budget items falls legally under the authority of the Finance Committee.  Jeremia was not aware of any statutes but stated that typically what is done in other towns is similar to these joint meetings and stressed that the only vote that counts is town meeting vote. Healthy discussion at this stage of the game is very valuable regardless of whether it is prescribed by law or statute.  Jeremia concluded that the Finance Committee’s input is critical to the process but the Select Board is the executive authority.

Jon S disagreed and offered to send Jeremia the statue from the State of MA Dept. of Labor

We then met with Chief Gareth Backhaus to discuss the following with regard to the proposed FY22 police department budget:

1. Part time officers: The Chief explained that the department has been having difficulty hiring and retaining part time officers because our hourly rate is not competitive with surrounding towns and officers are leaving or signing up for more shifts in the surrounding towns.  The surrounding town hourly rates were discussed.  John W. couldn’t understand how $1/hr. more could be a motivator.  Michele pointed out that at 20 hours per week that works out to about $1,700/year and that is a significant number and certainly a motivator. 
2. Police rental facilities: Chief explained that this covers when an officer makes an arrest and the person is brought to the Gt. Barrington police station for processing.
3. New cruiser: The Chief explained that the new cruiser (replacing the 2016) would be a hybrid (Monterey’s first) and reviewed the benefits of said model.  It could save 27k lbs. of co2 emissions in one year and a little more than 1/3 in fuel emissions.  Chief explained that selling/trading in cruisers as a general rule have no value left, in the past when we have traded them the town has received $500-600.
4. 2 speed signs for beach area: real safety thing to address cars going to fast in front of the beach. Not an expensive way to provide some additional safety for the folks at the beach. These signs can do some amazing reporting/tracking.  The town could purchase 1 this year and 1 next year if they prefer.  John W asked if there was any grant money available, Chief said if there was he would’ve applied for it and he is always looking for monies.  Rebecca asked for the Chief to find out how much more it would be to get the model that takes pictures of the plates speeding through; Steve noted that this would also increase the monies for staff to review the photos.

A motion was made by to submit this budget as it stands for final consideration when the budget is prepared as a whole. The motion was seconded. John W. no answer, Steve, yes, Don, yes. Finance Committee unanimously voted yes.