The committee spent significant time examining the possibility of adopting new budgeting software, with particular attention on ClearGov. The committee had previously expressed concerns about ClearGov’s costs, including a $10,000 initial setup fee and a $20,000 annual charge. Questions were raised about the software’s necessity, its potential to streamline budgeting, and its ability to facilitate long-term planning with features like five-year projections. Currently, the town relies on Excel spreadsheets, with previous tools like the Collins file falling into disuse. Members expressed a desire for software that could enhance efficiency and provide a more accessible and organized financial planning process.

The discussion about budgeting software also included dissatisfaction with a recent vendor presentation, which was criticized as being more of a “sales pitch” than an informative session. The vendor had failed to provide detailed answers, particularly regarding costs and data input responsibilities. To improve future presentations, the committee suggested giving vendors a list of specific information requirements to ensure responses meet the committee’s needs. There was a unanimous decision to recommend that the select board consider multiple software packages instead of limiting options, emphasizing the importance of a thorough exploration of available solutions. The committee resolved to gather more information and pursue additional vendor presentations before making a formal recommendation to the select board.

Another major topic was the reconsideration of the constable position, which had been eliminated in the last budget session. The committee explored the financial implications of using police officers versus constables for election duties. It was noted that police officers cost approximately $1,000 per election, while constables would cost about $200. The conversation included historical context about the shift from elected constables to appointed positions following a 1993 vote. There was interest in potentially rescinding this vote to allow for the re-election of constables, which could be addressed at a special town meeting.

Members expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and clear communication from officials regarding the constable role and the legal framework surrounding it. Concerns were raised about whether the positions were officially eliminated or simply not reappointed. Participants emphasized the need for further investigation and clarification, possibly consulting with town legal counsel to understand the implications of any changes to the constable policy. The committee agreed to continue exploring this issue and planned to revisit it in their next meeting. They aimed to gather comprehensive data and ensure informed decision-making, particularly in relation to upcoming elections and potential cost savings.

The meeting also touched on the committee’s relationship with the Board of Selectmen, with some members expressing dissatisfaction with joint meetings. One member described past joint sessions as “horrible” and “counterproductive,” feeling that the Finance Committee’s recommendations were often ignored. There was a call for the Finance Committee to operate more independently, with a focus on reviewing budget sheets as they arrived and scheduling discussions with department heads before meeting with the Board of Selectmen.

The committee highlighted the importance of timely budget document submissions, with a January 12 deadline set for departments to submit their budgets. Members stressed that failure to meet this deadline could result in reverting to the previous year’s budget. There was concern about ensuring that budget submissions were received on time, with a focus on avoiding issues that had arisen in the past.

Discussions also included other financial matters, such as waste management and trash collection, with the committee awaiting updates on tonnage and revenue reports related to the trash program. The transition to a sticker system for trash disposal was noted, with an emphasis on understanding its budgetary impact. The expiration of current stickers by June 30 was also mentioned, highlighting the need to prepare for the next fiscal year.