Blandford Select Board Faces Questions Over Missing Park Funds and Water Department Challenges

The Blandford Select Board meeting focused on a variety of topics, including the management of town property funds, pressing budgetary concerns in the water department, and discussions around department oversight and financial accountability. Of particular interest was the revelation of potential financial discrepancies in the town park’s maintenance fund, alongside ongoing challenges in managing the water department’s fiscal health.

25:16A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to uncovering a financial discrepancy in the park fund meant for the perpetual maintenance of Bicentennial Park. George, a resident involved in the park’s restoration efforts, presented his findings, which traced back to a 1975 donation from Winterford Arms. George raised concerns about the apparent loss of $30,000 from the account, with funds dwindling from over $53,000 in 2012 to less than $23,000 in 2024. He suggested that a forensic audit might be necessary to track the financial history accurately, given the lack of documentation regarding expenditures over the decades. George’s presentation underscored the need for an investigation into the missing funds, highlighting a gap in financial accountability and transparency within the town’s financial management practices.

The discussion further delved into the town’s financial policy, emphasizing the requirement for regular treasurer reports on account holdings and income. However, George pointed out the inconsistency of these reports, which had not been consistently provided, adding to the challenge of understanding the park fund’s financial status. The board acknowledged the urgency of addressing the park’s financial management, although they noted that the treasurer and accountant were currently dealing with personal challenges, which might delay the investigation.

57:25Equally pressing were the discussions around the water department’s financial challenges. The board addressed a transfer of $87,554 from the general fund into the water fund, attributed to a perceived shortfall in revenue necessary to cover expenses. Concerns about overspending at the end of the fiscal year led to an agreement to monitor the situation closely. For the fiscal year 2026, additional funds would need to be transferred from retained earnings and stabilization funds, which would deplete the retained earnings fund.

The meeting also touched on the financial implications of delinquent bills from businesses at the turnpike service plaza, with concerns about the water department potentially writing off these debts. The board was urged to apply pressure on the turnpike to ensure timely payments, as these revenues were important to the water department’s budget. Additionally, rumors of the turnpike shutting down for renovations raised alarms about a potential loss of approximately $40,000 annually from meal taxes, which would further strain the water department’s budget.

01:37:13Aside from these critical financial issues, the meeting addressed various budgetary concerns, including the allocation for highway department fuel expenses and the absence of salary breakdowns for highway personnel. The board noted the need for transparency and accountability, particularly as these issues could arise during the upcoming town meeting. Discussions around snow and ice removal expenses were also prominent, as current year expenses had exceeded the budget by $56,000, prompting concerns over future winter costs.

01:59:18The meeting closed with discussions on capital expenditures and the need for strategic financial planning to avoid unnecessary borrowing. The importance of audits and accountability in grant spending was emphasized, particularly for substantial projects like the proposed $350,000 study tied to an above-ground water storage tank. The board recognized the need for a clear financial strategy to manage both immediate departmental needs and long-term fiscal health.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: