A focal point of the meeting was a detailed financial update, spotlighting the certification of free cash at $6,254,439. The committee expressed appreciation for the financial team and specifically James Pello, noting the efficient turnaround time for the certification, which typically encounters more scrutiny from the state. It was highlighted that $500,000 of this free cash was rolled over from the previous year, and a spending freeze implemented in December contributed to $1.3 million in turnbacks. Additionally, revenue generated from auction sales in the previous summer was discussed, with indications that a portion of this could be subject to reimbursement requests.

Questions were raised about the allocation of funds to the stabilization account. It was clarified that a proposal to allocate at least a million dollars to stabilization would likely elevate the total above the recommended 5% threshold. Discrepancies in the June financial report were also noted, with ten categories showing increased allocations compared to May, totaling an excess of $130,000. It was explained that some adjustments might have been made due to supplemental funding requests during town meetings.

Concerns were brought up regarding the fire department’s budget, which had received a substantial fall supplement of $233,000 but had subsequently returned $287,000 in the spring. The inquiry aimed to understand the reasons behind this turnback. It was explained that the fire department initially anticipated higher overtime costs, which ultimately did not materialize, leading to the return of excess funds.

The committee then delved into the topic of free cash expectations for the current year. Surprise was expressed at the higher-than-anticipated free cash, with earlier projections suggesting a lower amount due to factors like an insurance holiday from the previous year. This expectation had influenced personal decision-making regarding budget allocations. The difficulty in planning was underscored when actual free cash exceeded expectations.

There was also a discussion about interest earnings from funds earmarked for building projects. It was shared that an amount of interest had been anticipated due to rising rates, but the extent of the earnings was unforeseen. A significant portion of the interest income derived from general fund money, with the treasurer pursuing higher interest rates effectively.

Public perceptions regarding the management of free cash and the town’s budgeting processes were addressed, noting an influx of emails and concerns from the public. The importance of transparency was emphasized, with assurances that there was no intent to withhold information. The need for ongoing dialogue to ensure clarity around free cash management and the budgeting process was recognized.

The urgent need for repairs to the Norton Middle School roof was another topic. Concerns were raised about ongoing issues with the school’s roof, which has been problematic since its construction in 1998. The school department had submitted a Statement of Interest to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), which was recently advanced to the next approval round. This advancement was significant as it marked the first time the project was considered due to the roof reaching the required age threshold for replacement.

The Finance Committee discussed concerns regarding the roofing issues at the middle school, particularly in a sixth-grade classroom on the third floor. Given the ongoing issues, it was noted that it is “definitely time for this to happen.” Currently, the MSBA offers a reimbursement rate of 55.63%, implying that over half of the project’s costs would be covered by the state if Norton is approved to participate.

A budget estimate for the schematic design was discussed, anticipated to range between $30,000 and $50,000, with assurances that it would not exceed $50,000. The full proposal for the entire roofing project would be presented at the Spring Town Meeting, following the schematic design process. There was concern about the timing of the decisions required from the townspeople, as they would need to vote before knowing if the project would move forward. The complete roof repairs were estimated to be around $4 million, with the town expected to cover approximately $2 million after state reimbursements.

Further discussion included borrowing practices for municipal projects, with concerns about borrowing a large sum upfront for a project that has not yet commenced. It was explained that the town did not borrow all funds for the Town Hall project at once, retaining an additional estimated $4.5 million pending the project’s completion, potentially to take advantage of lower interest rates in the spring.

Discussions also touched on a petition article concerning an easement for a property on West Main Street, across from the Yell School. The petitioner needed a perpetual easement across a town-owned parcel to access another lot for future development. The committee learned that the state disallowed another curb cut, necessitating the use of an existing town-owned curb cut.