The only budgets approved on Monday were the Treasurer’s – his budget, Parking, and Postage.

I sit on the subcommittee that reviews these budgets. It wasn’t easy. Treasurer Stephen Gilligan’s requests exceed the 4% of five-year plan by a significant amount. Also, his proposed budget included moving the payroll department from the school budget to his budget. There was significant wrangling over the last few weeks.

The treasurer didn’t have an agreement with the superintendent on the payroll move, so we recommended against that move, at least for now. We also recommended against increasing the number of hours for a couple of positions within the budget. Finally, we approved a portion of the requested increase for legal fees to be paid to former treasurer John Bilafer to help execute tax liens and such.

In the end the budget goes up 4.5%, but the postage and parking budgets go up 3% and 2%, so it works out to 4.00% increase between the three.

I voted yes, but just barely. This increase is too much. I remain hopeful that the treasurer will move on several cost-saving measures. No one voted no on the budget, but there were others who share these concerns and abstained or voted yes with an eye on future changes.

On Wednesday the first hearing was from the Council on Aging. They have two warrant articles. The first is a request for $7500 to fund jobs for the town where senior citizens can work off part of their tax bill. Last year I voted against this because I didn’t think it made sense to fund these positions outside of the departments where the work is done. I still think that is a better idea, but at $7500, it just isn’t worth arguing about. Items like the Minuteman Voc budget or the town’s use of IT are better uses of my time. The $7500 was approved.

The Minuteman Senior Services was the second article. They wanted $9200 as a “fair share” of the more than $2 million in services they provide. Most of the group’s money comes from the state. Arlington has declined to pay this for the last few years because of budget pressures, but it was approved 15-2 for ’08. I voted yes. I was swayed by the argument that community support makes a difference when asking for other funding. We’re getting good services return on our dollar here.

I presented the Comptroller’s budget. There were two significant changes. First, there was a retirement in the phone operator area, so we cut the budget from 1.8 FTE to 1.3 FTE. That 1.3 FTE should be enough to always have a human being available to answer the phone. The second was as shuffling of items in the expenses to more accurately reflect spending.

It’s worth pointing out that the consulting line item, budgeted at $3000, is again overspent – probably by more than $25,000. That would continue a trend of more than $250,000 in overspending on that item over the last 5 years.

The 200th Anniversary Committee returned and presented their budget in more detail. When we voted the budget I offered an amendment to fund $1000, but the amendment lost 3-14. The amount of $6200 was approved 13-4. I think the committee is doing a great job, but I’d prefer that taxpayers didn’t pay for such items. Private funding is sufficient. And yes, Steve: I’ll gladly write another check!

The public safety Adminstration budget was approved as presented.

The police budget was next. The lively topic of discussion was the overtime budget, which is overspent again. The overtime is funded by the unspent salaries on vacant positions. This lineitem shifting has been sufficient and the department hasn’t needed a transfer. I agreed with members who argued that the lineitems should be changed to reflect reality. The chief and the manager can run the department exactly as they have been doing, but the budget should show the “real” numbers, not a fiction.

If I had my way we’d budget the salaries less and overtime more, which is exactly how the money is being spent. For whatever reason the committee chooses to budget regular salaries that no one expects to spend and budget a level of overtime spending that no one expects will be correct.

UPDATE: I got an email that this wasn’t clear, so here are the numbers. Overtime has been budgeted at $250,000 for the last three years. FY05 actual overtime spending was $480k, FY06 was $423k, and FY07 is on pace for more than $400k. The total police budget does not go over because the chief pays overtime out of the lineitem marked for salaries. He has salary money unused because there are always vacancies – retirements, job changes, etc. The FY08 salary lineitem is $4.2m, but everyone knows that won’t be entirely spent – there will always be a vacancy (or 2 or 4) because of turnover. If I had my preference we’d fund the salary item at, say, $4.0m and overtime at $450k. The bottom line is the same, the chief has the flexibility that he needs, and the budget is a better, more accurate document.

There was a motion to increase the lineitem for salaries, and increase the bottom line by the same amount. This failed without a single supporting vote. I wonder what the vote would have been if the motion was a zero-sum change that shifted money between lineitems. The budget was then passed.

The issue will come up again with the fire department. The difference there is that the fire department’s overtime spending has broken the budget and forced several fund transfers.

The inspectional services budget was approved.