The committee’s deliberations revealed a significant oversight in using ClearGov software, which was intended to streamline budget input and provide a five-year financial outlook. A participant expressed frustration over the missed opportunity to harness the software’s capabilities, stating, “we used grant money… and then we never did anything with it.” The committee discussed the annual renewal costs for ClearGov, estimated at $15,000 to $20,000, and questioned whether these should be part of the IT budget. There was also mention of discrepancies between the data input into the software and the actual budgets. The committee emphasized the need for training sessions, which had not yet been organized, to ensure the software is effectively integrated into the town’s budgeting process.

In addition to software challenges, the meeting emphasized the necessity for improved auditing and financial tracking mechanisms. It was noted that the Housing Authority trust required an audit, which had not been previously accounted for in financial assessments. The conversation revealed a broader issue of inadequate reviews concerning revolving funds, with one participant stating, “we really don’t do a review of them, we just pop them in.” This lack of scrutiny extends to cash tracking, with concerns raised about the absence of checks and balances, particularly with cash transactions at the Senior Center and Recycling Center.

The committee recognized the need to update financial policies, specifically referencing an outdated Article Six of the Town Charter. A member suggested, “we need to update the policy then,” acknowledging that current guidelines do not meet the town’s needs. This realization led to discussions about the inadequacy of the town’s budget preparation, with an absence of a consistent five-year budget forecast.

In addressing these challenges, the committee considered training opportunities offered by the Department of Local Services (DLS), which include forecasting workshops. Although the schedule is tight, a sense of urgency was expressed to secure spots by February 14 to enhance financial management skills. These workshops could provide valuable insights to improve the town’s financial practices and policies.

Another topic was the scheduling and organization of upcoming budget review sessions. The committee identified several departments requiring budget reviews, including building, land use, and the Board of Health. Specific dates were confirmed for meetings with various departments, such as the school committee, police communications, and the Council on Aging.

The committee also discussed the logistics of coordinating meetings, proposing joint sessions with the select board to facilitate comprehensive budget discussions. This coordination aims to ensure all departments are adequately represented and key financial issues are addressed before the budget summit scheduled for March 1.

Attention was given to capital planning discussions, where it was suggested that documentation should be prepared in advance. The committee noted that some departments had submitted their capital requests, while others were pending. There was a call for more frequent meetings to ensure timely discussions and decision-making. Concerns were raised about the organization of the capital planning committee, with a lack of clarity on leadership and meeting schedules. The need for someone to initiate a meeting and appoint a chairperson was highlighted, with suggestions that retired members might offer more flexibility in scheduling.

Additionally, the committee touched upon the importance of adhering to policy and procedure while planning these meetings to enable structured discussions and timely budget passage. They discussed the potential benefits of displaying budget information on a screen during presentations to improve clarity and visibility.