(Catching up on notes; here is 3/21. I got there very late because I was busy at work. No FinCom until April 4. Black text is mostly objective, red text is mostly subjective in nature.)

The committee was discussing the Council on Aging budget when I arrived. They were discussing moving someone out of the transportation budget and onto the main budget. There was a discussion of whether or not there was a means test for the transportation service. The budget was approved. I would have preferred to abstain on this one, but it was a voice vote, and I didn’t feel strongly enough to ask for a hand count.

The Youth Services budget was next. There were several questions about how the budgeting for counselors and the schools were done. The budget was approved. Charlie Foskett chaired the discussion of this article.

Article 28 was discussed (first discussion here). A vote of support failed 2-10, and a recommendation of no action carried by 10-2. The proponents thought this was a good way to manage the school properties. The opponents to the idea believed that the accounting can (and has) been done without requiring a special fund. The special fund removes budgeting flexibility in that it sequesters up to $500,000 a year.

Several articles were voted without significant debate including parades, transfer from tip fee stabilization fund, cemetery reserve fund, overlay reserve, and unencumbered funds (free cash), and a miscellaneous spending article.