2004-12-02-AC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

December 2, 2004 Discussion re AL’s memo: - DK: Would argue that there are places in town budget where resources aren’t adequate for prudent management. So level service might not be appropriate goal. Described two different types of problems – inadequate staffing on the one hand, and some problems managing capital issues which may or may not be related to resources. - AL: Appears that Revenue Office staff has been cut more than it should be; Assessors Office has similar problem, probably other departments as well. List from Linda Vine re task in Town Manager’s office – seems substantial. Not arguing that current state of services is adequate, just the general idea that the kinds of services we have now are the ones we want to keep. Can argue at the fringes, but more or less this is the level of services we want. - DB: Can we agree that at a minimum, we don’t want to degrade services below current level? General concern on AC that there are places where we need to address problems by adding staff. - DK.: Not ready to say no override this year. Thinks we shouldn’t prejudge the political outcome. Expressed concern about staff already approaching their budget development by prejudging what officials want to hear. Lively discussion about the pressures on staff, the role of town manager to provide guidance, our role as oversight committee and not budget developers. - AL: Trying to make the point that cutting the budget is not the solution we’re looking for because services have already been cut pretty far. th - PH: We need a 5 bullet on Al’s document: “acknowledge structural problems in some departments and the need to come up with plan for structural repair of damaged departments.” Agrees with “do not degrade current services levels” - RE: If we can identify those departmental problems now, shouldn’t we start advocating for fixing them before town meeting? - PH: Don’t think that things that are structural issues should be put to override referendum. One or two more people in the assessors office – to put that on an override is a mistake. Something else will have to go on override. - AL: Assessment and revenue collection are fundamental and should be staffed adequately. Burden should be on other departments if we need to put people there. - - DB pointed out that even if you do this, only exacerbates the structural problem and you’re cutting in other places that citizens think important – class sizes, police staff, etc. Still have to put something to a referendum. - S. English agrees that Moody’s issue is helping us focus on future. - M. Young: – as budget officer, the goal is that Dec. 13 will be first budget th presentation to BOS; have 3 dates on calendar - Dec 13 and 15 and a date in Jan. Staff have been preparing budgets at the department level with help from finance staff, then finance staff put these budgets together, there’s an internal review, and then they’re given to BOS for discussion, recommendations. - R. Pagett gratified by direction discussion is taking. Have to be prudent in how we craft FY06 budget with eye towards Moody’s. Understands that on school budget, there’s an increase of 40 students that leads to the addition of 14 staff. This means our budget gap is larger than the $4.6M on the pro forma. Page 7 of 8