Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text
February 07, 2024, Finance Committee - Virtual Meeting. Minutes
Saved text from 11 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original. Retrieved 2026-10-15.
Source page 1
Canton Finance Committee Minutes Voted on: 2/21/24
801 Washington Street Vote: 6-0-0
Canton, MA 02021
Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2024
Finance Committee Members Present: Dave Clough, Dan Cole, Karen Foley, Emilio Mauro, Tim McKenna, Kristin
Mirliani, Reuki Schutt and Cindy Thomas.
Finance Committee Members Absent: Maureen Menconi.
Guests Present:
Victor Del Vecchio, Revere & Son Heritage Trust
Alan Hines, Revere & Son Heritage Trust
Randy Scollins, Finance Director
Call Meeting to Order: Ms. Thomas called the virtual Zoom Finance Committee meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Review of the Agenda – Ms. Thomas reviewed the agenda items that included FY25 budget discussion with Alan
Hines and Victor Del Vecchio of the Revere and Son Heritage Trust (RSHT), the Revenue Forecast voted by the
Revenue Forecast Committee (RFC), follow-up to the Auditor’s Report for FY23 and an update from Mr. Scollins
regarding the formation of a Procurement Committee for a Police Department Study.
Discussion - FY25 Municipal Budget Requests
Revere and Son Heritage Trust (RSHT) – Alan Hines and Victor Del Vecchio
Mr. Hines started the budget discussion. Mr. Scollins screen-shared their nine-page PowerPoint presentation. The
Trust manages the Revere Barn and the Rolling Mill for the Town. They are overseeing the design and development
of the Museum. Revenue is from fundraising events and donations/contributions as well as Canton tax revenue. The
Trust is seeking monies to fund the Museum (capital campaign). The Trust has retained a private fundraiser to help
seek additional funds. The Trust does not want to be fundraising to supplement their Town budget. Many donations
are earmarked by donors for specific uses. Total revenues for FY23 total $318,186. (See meeting documents for
detail.)
Mr. Hines presented the following information regarding their June 2022-23 Total Revenue – including fundraising:
• Total gross revenue including fundraising events totaled $318,186.
• Of the $318,186 approximately $19,652 was collected from fundraising events and $298,534 was derived
from State ARPA Tourism Grant/State Earmark funds, Norfolk County ARPA funds, donations and small
grants and Canton taxes collected.
• Of the $65,867 Canton taxes collected, 37% or $24,440 was appropriated towards the RSHT budget. The
remaining funds were used for $24,746 for a shed, $8,000 for a monument sign, $5,944 for peer review of
barn work and $2,727 towards Fund 152 R&S Donation Account.
Mr. Hines presented information regarding FY23 expenses as follows:
• Total expenses for FY23 was $242,915.
• Of the $242,915 spent, $116,000 (from state and Norfolk County grants) went towards Museum Design,
$38,690 was spent on three areas (peer review of barn work, storage shed and monument sign). $42,936
was spent on salaries and taxes ($21,198) and the remaining $21,738 spent on office expense, IT software,
insurance and cleaning. Approximately $7,659 was depreciation.
Mr. Hines reviewed the R&S fiscal year June 2023-24 Budget (services versus actual costs):
• The R&S requested $76,200 for the FY24 budget. Town Meeting approved $66,200 for the FY24 budget.
• Of the $66,200 approved, $25,000 was spent for salaries with the remaining $41,200 spent for custodial,
professional services consulting, community event support and IT cleaning and office supplies. Mr. Hines
stated that they cannot operate as an organization without having resources. The Museum is open all
Saturdays and the R&S needs an administrative assistant to help with logistics of renting out the space at the
FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 1 of 11 2/17/24Source page 2
Barn and Copper Mill Hall. He stated that the R&S is a Municipal Department. The salaries for the R&S’s two
employees are running at approximately $35,500 per year. They were budgeted only $25,000 for salaries.
Mr. Hines is requesting $117,788 for their FY25 budget.
• $45,000 is being requested for salaries with a 3% increase. Media support of $2,500 is requested (currently
being provided for free to the Town) and $6,000 is requested for Web Site maintenance.
• FY25 Expenses requested total $72,788 with increases for custodial/cleaning (including the Park Restrooms),
professional services consulting, IT cleaning and office supplies and insurance.
Ms. Thomas reminded members to use the “hand raise” feature of the Zoom meeting if they would like to ask questions.
After all Committee members have asked questions there would be time allotted for the public to ask questions.
Mr. Mauro thanked the RSHT for all that they do. With regard to the rising costs of the budget, Mr. Mauro inquired as
to how the RSHT will see a way forward to make it more solvent. Are there more grants that can be obtained? Are
there more things that can be done? Mr. Hines responded that while they collect admission fees from the Museum,
rent from the restaurant and rental fees from Copper Mill usage, they will still need a base budget. He further stated
that their fundraising efforts will be able to support their programs and events done for the community but because they
consider themselves a department of the Town and have million-dollar assets (buildings) of the Town he has always
said from the start up that they are always going to need a base budget of approximately $200,000 to $250,000 which
they would eventually plateau at. He emphasized the Town would still need someone to manage the use of these
buildings.
Mr. Mauro commented that there was a $200,000 request made to the Community Preservation Committee for a
pavilion, but was not approved. He inquired how this would impact the RSHT’s future projections for revenue and is
there a plan B to get the pavilion built for the future. Mr. Hines stated they are working on a plan and are moving slowly
with the use of the property. There could be a private donor. Mr. Del Vecchio stated that they have devoted dollars
that they have raised towards the design phase for a pavilion ($25,000 to $50,000).
Mr. Cole inquired if there is $500,000 revenue budgeted for FY25. Mr. Hines stated that for FY24 they are anticipating
slightly more than $500,000 in revenue but that these are coming from grants for which the funds cannot be spent for
other purposes, such as operating expenses. The RSHT will receive a total of $405,000 from the Norfolk County ARPA
Grant of which $60,000 has already been received. The RSHT also received a $200,000 grant from the Mass Cultural
Council but the RSHT had to have matching funds for the planned use of the grant. Grant funds received are for the
specific use of the Museum. Mr. Hines stated that all of their events are self-funded.
Ms. Thomas inquired about the cost for the public restrooms custodial services and the commitment made by the Town
Administrator that the public restrooms would be cleaned three times per week and the cost being added to the RSHT
budget instead of the Parks & Recreation budget. The residents of the Paul Revere Site raised their concerns to the
Town with regard to these restrooms and they asked about the Town’s plans for these restrooms. Mr. Hines stated to
them that they had in their budget for the cleaning of the bathrooms for one time per week, which was unacceptable to
the residents, therefore, the Town Administrator committed to three times per week as well as shrubbery around the
building. Mr. Del Vecchio stated that he attended a Select Board meeting at which time they were asked to put the
custodial services in the RSHT budget. He stated that the RSHT does not manage that portion of the Paul Revere site
but recognized the importance of the restrooms and agreed to place it in their budget.
Mr. Clough thanked Mr. Hines for the presentation. He encouraged members to review the licensing agreement that
covers which expenses are to be under the RSHT. With regard to the insurance budget, he stated that in the agreement
it states that the licensee, which is the Trust, would be responsible for insurance as well as litter collection. When Mr.
Scollins was a member of the RSHT he worked with the Town’s insurance agent to make sure the RSHT had a policy
in place to cover any insurance issues. Mr. Clough suggested that it would be beneficial to see salaries include a
fundraising coordinator to help with fundraising efforts and to have the Museum open on Saturdays and Sundays to
potentially help with revenue. Geoinsights provides mitigation services. He inquired if mitigation services would be
performed every five years and has it been done since Plymouth Rubber was converted to the site. For fundraising
efforts it would be great to have a five-year capital plan. Mr. Hines stated that while he did not have time to gather
information for Mr. Clough for the meeting he would provide that to him soon. With regard to the fundraising salary
item he said they had addressed this. The RSHT retained individual last year for $20,000 for fundraising that was paid
for from other fundraising funds to help them with their capital campaign efforts. Mr. Hines stated that the cost of a
fundraiser should net against the fundraising gains. Mr. Del Vecchio stated that he was on the Select Board when
mitigation was undertaken and Geoinsights was essentially a peer review of the contamination efforts made by the
developer and that responsibility falls “squarely” within the Select Board’s governance. Mr. Del Vecchio, with regard to
insurance being the responsibility of the licensee, it did not say in the agreement that the RSHT could not seek funds
from the Town for the policy.
FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 2 of 11 2/17/24Source page 3
Mr. Hines reviewed the remaining slides of the presentation showing before and after pictures. The restrooms are
being manufactured and are on schedule to be delivered sometime in mid-March. The deck will allow the RSHT to run
events at the barn with the ability to obtain a 1-day liquor permit to allow corporate outings at the barn generating
revenues going forward. With respect to the terrace, Mr. Del Vecchio stated that witin the 2021 Master Plan the
consultants at the time estimated that the terrace would cost $750,000 to design and create. The RSHT got the terrace
for nothing as per the negotiations entered into by the Town under the Select Board’s leadership and was paid for by
the developer. The Town paid for $5,500 for architectural fees for a peer review of the developer’s progress. An art
exhibit was held in the barn with tables placed on the terrace for the benefit of the community’s enjoyment.
Ms. Thomas requested that if Mr. Hines forwards additional information to Mr. Scollins that it be forwarded to the full
Committee so everyone has access to the same information.
Mr. Hines thanked the Committee for all of the time and effort during this busy budget season. Ms. Thomas thanked
Mr. Hines and Mr. Del Vecchio and commented that the site is an asset to the community for all to enjoy. The RSHT’s
presentation ended at approximately 7:48 p.m.
Revenue Forecast, Fixed Costs
Mr. Scollins pointed out that there was an error on the agenda and that he would not cover cash capital estimates at
the time of the meeting because he was waiting for the Select Board to make their recommendations before sharing it
with the Finance Committee. He also stated with regard to the Fixed Costs item on the agenda that he had covered
Fixed Costs at a prior meeting.
The Finance Committee Chair and Vice Chair reviewed the revenue estimates at the Revenue Forecast meeting on
February 6, 2024.
The Revenue Forecast Committee (RFC) is comprised of the Town Administrator, School Superintendent, Assistant
School Superintendent of Finance and Operations for the Schools, Chair and Vice Chair of the Finance Committee,
Town Accountant, Director of Assessing, Building Commissioner and the Finance Director (Mr. Scollins).
The RFC voted unanimously to support the Revenue Forecast being presented to the Finance Committee at the
meeting. Mr. Scolllins displayed the information on the Zoom screen. Mr. Scollins did not read the RFC policy as it did
not change from the prior year. In summary, Mr. Scollins summarized that the RFC’s goal is “to be reasonable and
prudent to develop a forecast that is going to be able to sustain services with recurring revenue funds and to also live
within the Town’s means in order to generate free cash recharge that can be utilized to stabilize budgets and service
levels.”
The highlights for estimated FY25 Revenues are as follows:
• Property tax revenue - $97,596,491
• Staite Aid (Governor’s estimate) - $11,688,066
• Local Receipts - $10,113,307
• Transfers from Other Funds - $4,542,220 (transfer from Ambulance Receipts is for the replacement of an
ambulance for FY25).
• Excluding the ambulance funding – Increase to the revenue forecast is 4.3% as compared to 4.9% for the
prior year and as compared to the larger increases in prior fiscal years which were driven by increased state
aid.
The highlights for estimated FY25 Property Tax Revenues are as follows:
• Net property tax revenue is estimated to increase by $3.9 million to $97.6 million.
• Levy Limit is increasing by 2.5% or $2.4 million.
• New Growth Tax is estimated at $873,000 by the Assessing and Building Department. After a thorough review
by the Director of Assessing and the Building Commissioner and vetted by the RFC it was concluded that
FY25 will be a “low ebb” in property tax growth for the Town.
• The Allowable Levy is reduced by Point32 Health PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) of $1.75 million. This
property is no longer subject to property taxes. The 30-year PILOT agreement increases by 3% per year.
• The Levy Limit includes $911,390 related to debt exclusions, which are being paid down.
• The Net Property Tax Revenue estimated for FY25 is $97,596,491.
Mr. Cole inquired if the Ch. 90 funds received from the state for the roads were included in the revenue forecast. Mr.
Scollins stated that Ch. 90 is not General Fund Revenue and is dedicated funding from the state. It is considered as
state aid but it is not included in the standard Cherry Sheet State Aid which goes directly to the general fund. Ch. 90
is considered as state aid and is allocated to the towns.
FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 3 of 11 2/17/24Source page 4
Property Taxes from Debt Exclusions – Net of Reimbursements:
• Debt Exclusion Tax is decreasing $372,000 due to amortization of existing bond issues.
• The Library was paid off in FY23 and the High School will be paid off in FY24.
• By FY28 Gross Excluded Debt is scheduled to be $1.2 million less than it was in FY18. This will free up debt
capacity for the contemplated Galvin Middle School Project.
• There are three remaining debt exclusions to pay off – the Hansen School addition (2037), Bolivar Pool project
(2040) and the acquisition of the St. Gerard’s property (2042).
• Because the MSBA reimbursements have long since passed there is very minimal relief to the Town to offset
the debt exclusion tax. It is basically from bond premiums that bond buyers pay to the Town that the state
requires the Town to amortize and apply to reduce the cost to the taxpayers over the life of the bond.
• Total estimated Net Excluded Debt Service for FY25 is $911,390.
State Aid is the second primary recurring revenue stream for the Town as follows:
• The Governor’s FY25 proposed budget ass reflected as of 1/25/24 is a 1.4% increase, or 6% less than the
prior year percentage increase.
• Education Aid is up only $71,400, or 0.8%.
• General Government Aid is up $86,400 or 3.1%.
• Total State Aid Proposal is a $157,800 increase or 1.4%.
• With regard to the Education state aid, there were substantial increases in FY23 (19.8%) and FY24 (8.7%).
• Unrestricted General Government Aid is a smaller portion of state aid but had a 3% increase.
• The 1.4% overall increase for FY25 puts “downward pressure” on funding budgets for FY25.
• The legislature will most likely take five more months to finalize the FY25 budget. Mr. Scollins predicts that
the “short answer” on how likely this will change is “no” (not in time before the Town has to have budget
recommendations finalized and documented in the Finance Committee Recommendations to the Voters).
Local Receipts include such items as excise taxes, hotel and meals excise taxes, fees, alcohol licenses, etc.
• The FY25 budget is estimated to increase by $863,000 or 9.3%.
• The Gross Receipts is estimated to increase by $1.35 million or 12.9%.
• The Free Cash Recharge is targeted at $1.5 million which is consistent with the Town’s plan. The RFC
forecasts what they truly believe the gross local receipts will be collected without being conservative.
• The total local receipts estimate for FY25 is $12,113,307. This amount is reduced by $1.5 million to recharge
free cash which is consistent with past practice and living within the Town’s means.
• The budgeted FY25 local receipts is $10,223,307 which is $2 million less than the estimated total local
receipts. There is a $500,000 additional reduction to the commitment in the budget. This is a $500,000
investment earnings hold back in anticipation of eventual reduced earnings. Mr. Scollins explained that
interest income is highly variable. In FY21 and FY22 the Town earned in the range of $150,000 in interest
income. In FY23 the rates began to rise. FY23 was a very good year for the Town for interest income earning
$1.5 million with the Treasurer maximizing rates and aggressively pursuing the best rates from the banks to
make sure the Town was receiving the best possible interest on its income. In FY24 the Town is on track to
reach approximately $2 million in interest income. The estimated FY24 budget for interest income was put
together a year ago for an estimated $600,000 in interest income. Per Mr. Scollins, the reason for not
budgeting $2 million for interest income in FY25 is the following: the scenario playing out with interest income
is a “potential trap” for municipalities. In FY08 when interest rates dropped and the mortgage backed scandal
for FY09 for government the capital gains tax earnings for the state practically disappeared, but it had been
booming for a decade. The state did not hedge on how much they committed to their budgets. They learned
the hard way in 2009 that they had over relied heavily on capital gains tax the result being 9c(??) cuts in 2009
and dramatically reduced state aid budgets for the next couple of years until the economy started to recover.
In response to that, the state reevaluated their approach to incorporating capital gains estimated earnings into
their revenue forecast. They were not going to commit all of their capital gains estimates but would go down
to a baseline so they would not be caught short like they were in 2009 and thereafter. To protect the Town
for being over reliant on interest income when it is likely based on what they are seeing and hearing based on
what the Fed is likely poised to do over the next year. Currently, the average earnings from the banks for
General Fund earnings is approximately 4.5%. Mr. Scollins is estimating the earnings to be 3.5% by the end
of FY25. The $2 million that the Town is likely to receive in FY24 is not likely in FY25. As a result the RFC
agreed to reduce the estimated investment earnings by $500,000.
• FY23 gross local receipts high amount of $13,27,638 was impacted by things that will not recur. Miscellaneous
Revenue of $502,016 was impacted by the following: the Town Treasury loaned the Affordable Housing Trust
$214,000 to purchase a property that was being taken off of the affordable housing list unless the Town acted
to buy it and then to sell it before the end of the fiscal year resulting in a deduct to the Town’s free cash at the
end of the year, but it came back to the Town in the first month of FY23 in the amount of $217,000. The Town
also has $140,000 in opioid receipts that the Town had started to receive in FY22. Opioid receipts, according
to the Department of Revenue, are not technically General Fund Local Receipts. The funds will be re-
appropriated as special purpose receipts. The legislature has corrected this and at the May 2024 Town
FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 4 of 11 2/17/24Source page 5
Meeting there will be an article that allows the Town to appropriate from free cash all of the opioid funds the
Town has received to place in a Special Revenue Fund that must be used specifically for opioid prevention
related purposes. There is approximately $133,000 that is not for General Fund purposes and will not be
going forward. The Blue Hills Regional School are required by their regulations to return to their member
communities any “over achieve” that they had in their Stabilization Account. There was $38,00 that came
back to the Town which will not recur.
Ms. Thomas made a comment that as part of the RFC process, in the past there were challenging times as the estimates
were always conservative. While the Town needs to have the right balance between aggressiveness and risk and at
the same time not over commit reserves, the RFC meeting went well. The RFC is pushing the envelope as far as is
appropriate to have a balanced budget by maximizing revenues but not over extending. She complimented Mr. Scollins
on his presentation. Mr. Mauro agreed with Ms. Thomas with the balance of the “want to be aggressive in projections”
but to also be prudent and not put the Town in a position that it may not meet the projections.
Mr. Clough inquired if the Local Receipts estimate included any revenue with regard to Top Golf. Mr. Scollins stated
that the Hotels and Meals Excise Tax revenue in FY21 dropped due to COVID. In FY22 the revenue rebounded. In
FY23, while the Town lost some restaurant businesses, hotels and restaurants within the Town contributed to the Hotel
and Meals Tax revenue increasing to $1.023 million collected in FY23. In FY24 the RFC was not as aggressive as it
could be with an estimated revenue of $900,000. It is currently trending to the $1.037 million being projected for FY25
based on the first two quarters received as compared to last year. The RFC is fully committed with its forecast. Other
property tax revenue related to Top Golf is included in the FY25 property tax revenue projection.
Mr. Clough commented that he noticed on the Tax Recapitulation that commercial property valuations grew by 5%
while residential properties grew by 8.5%. He is of the opinion that the Town is not assessing commercial properties
high enough and the Town might be missing out on millions of dollars of additional revenue. Would the Town bring in
an additional consultant that specializes in commercial assessments to make sure the values the Town is using is
correct? Mr. Scollins responded that every town in the state has an outside consultant reviewing all of the assessments
made on properties as per the State Bureau of Local Assessment. In order for the Town to get their values certified,
including new growth, there is a rigorous process in place to meet the Bureau’s standards to make sure properties are
valued correctly. It is unnecessary for the Town to spend more funds to obtain a second opinion with regard to
commercial valuations.
Transfers from Other Funds – Mr. Scollins presented the following information:
• Transfers to the General Fund are recommended to increase by $752,000 with a net of $220,000 for operating
budgets.
• $532,000 from Ambulance Receipts Reserved (receipts collected) is dedicated in the Capital Budget for an
ambulance replacement.
• $170,000 increase from solar revenues.
• $103,000 from Enterprise Fund overhead chargebacks (administrative and benefit costs).
• $34,000 increase in Ambulance Receipts for operating expenses.
• $10,000 increase from Greenlodge Parking Fees.
• $95,000 reduction in Ambulance Debt Service Requirement.
• Total estimated Transfers From Other Funds for FY25 is $4,542,220.
• The Town has a 20-year bond ($6.3 million) that is paying for the infrastructure the Town purchased for the
Plymouth Rubber site. The payment is funded from monies that are collected from property tax revenues the
Town is receiving from all the properties at the Revere site based on a formula that is part of the DIF (District
Improvement Financing Plan) agreement from 2015. The amount for FY25 that is required to be deposited
into the DIF Sinking Fund is $1,071,000 by the DIF formula. This is a significant increase over the current
amount of $584,000. The Town receives gross tax receipts for the Revere site with the FY25 estimated
receipts to be $1.3 million. $1,071,000 has to be deposited into the sinking fund leaving over $200,000 (net
impact to the Town) in taxes to fund General Fund budgets. Deposits into the Sinking Fund will continue until
approximately FY29 when the Town will be fully funded in the Sinking Fund.
• In FY24 the $570,908 for Budget #116 Plymouth Rubber DIF equates to the debt service cost. The estimate
cost for FY25 is $570,907. The $507,000 is being pulled from the sinking fund in order to transfer out of
property taxes to pay the debt service.
Ambulance (EMS) Receipts Reserved Fund
• Ambulance receipts must be available at the time of appropriation (Town Meeting).
• Projected growth in ambulance receipts for FY25 is estimated at 2.5%.
• Uncollectible ambulance receipts are not included on the exhibit. The exhibit includes cash received and the
appropriations made from it.
FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 5 of 11 2/17/24Source page 6
Vote – Setting of the FY25 General Fund Revenues A motion made by Mr. McKenna to set the FY25 the General Fund Revenues for FY25 of $123,940,083 was seconded by Ms. Foley. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Schutt Aye Mr. Cole Aye Ms. Mirliani Aye Mr. Clough Aye Mr. McKenna Aye Mr. Mauro Aye Ms. Foley Aye Ms. Thomas Aye Vote: 8-0-0. Follow-up to the Auditor’s Report for FY23 A question and response exhibit was displayed on the screen with regard to network security, ARPA deadlines, police details billing and ambulance billings (see meeting handouts). Ms. Thomas discussed collections with regards to police details and ambulance billing. Mr. Scollins stated that certain receivables such as police details, ambulance billing and motor vehicle excise taxes are rarely fully collected for many reasons. Gross amounts are carried on the books and annually stale amounts are “written down” (not written off) for audit purposes. The Town continues to carry some of these balances because some payments are received. Ambulance receipts are typically uncollected, not because of the effort of the Town’s Coastal collection agency but can be the result of insurance adjustments. The uncollected receipts are written off by the Select Board on an annual process. The Town has a set rate but the collection agency runs up against insurances that the collection agency has to collect through the arrangements they have with the various companies. With regard to police detail receipts, the year end balances are mostly related to utility companies who are slow payors. The balances that are stale the Finance Director looks to the Police Chief to recommend them being written off. Mr. Scollins is in communication with the Police Chief when he notices balances rising. He stated that over the past year the Police Chief and her administrative assistant have done a phenomenal job reducing a ~$500,000 balance to $90,000 which he recommends the $90,000 be considered to be written off. Mr. Clough stated that of the $90,0000 approximately $60,000 is owed from Eversource. Mr. Scollins reiterated that the utility companies are extremely slow payors. Motor vehicle excise taxes that are unpaid are not typically written off because of lagging years. There is strong enforcement in that if a payor does not pay their excise tax the vehicle is flagged at the state level and individuals are unable to renew their license. Some that are really stale are written down but do not always write everything off. Mr. Clough is concerned with the process for the collection of police details billing and believes the process should be discussed with the Police Chief and the Select Board. There is an approximately $100,000 balance which could potentially fund an additional police officer. Ms. Thomas suggested that perhaps the police details collection process should be discussed with the Town Administrator to see if the Town is proceeding in the most effective manner. Mr. Scollins has raised this to the Town Administrator who holds Operations Meetings and that this topic is discussed. There are no concerns with ARPA deadlines. With regard to Network Security, the topic cannot be discussed in a public venue. Mr. Scollins reported that Mr. Jutras would be happy to discuss network security with the Committee but in an executive session to protect the Town. Assessors Overlay – Mr. Scollins stated that the Auditors recommended the Assessors Overlay balance be reduced. Mr. Scollins disagrees with this recommendation and has had discussions with the Auditors regarding the balance. The Overlay (similar to the Stabilization Fund) is part of the Town’s reserves and is not separate. The Town’s reserves are made up of three components: Assessor’s Overlay Fund, Stabilization Fund and Undesignated Fund. The Assessors had released funds to cover part of the Bolivar Pool Project. Mr. Scollins spoke with Mr. Roselli who was willing to pull their Auditors’ comment from the Management Letter regarding the Assessor’s Overlay. Mr. Scollins suggested leaving the comment in place. The former Town Accountant had an alternate understanding of this who believed there should not be such a high balance in the Assessor’s Overlay. FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 6 of 11 2/17/24
Source page 7
Annual Town Meeting Warrant 2024 Warrant Article- Finance Committee By-Law Change Warrant Article – Government Modernization Study Committee At approximately 9:00 p.m. Ms. Thomas respectfully asked the Committee to defer discussion of these two warrant articles to another meeting and asked the members to “dig into” the by-law. Update regarding the Procurement Committee for the Police Department Study Ms. Thomas stated that the Finance Committee does not have any authority or jurisdiction over this Procurement Committee or the study. She further stated that the purpose of the discussion at the meeting is to hear a status update from the Finance Director. Ms. Thomas asked if attendees wishing to comment if they could please state their name and keep their comments brief so that everyone may have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Scollins provided the following comments. On January 23, 2024 he appointed long-serving, veteran Town committee member and procurement expert Bob McCarthy as his designate to be the Chair of the very important Procurement Committee. Mr. McCarthy has 30 years of experience in procurement in the Town as well as serving on many committees. Mr. McCarthy did not ask to serve in the position but he graciously accepted the appointment and has been charged with managing the effort in accordance with the motion passed at the November 20, 2023 Special Town Meeting (STM). With regard to secretarial assistance to accomplish the task, Human Resources is working on finding someone to fill the role. He further stated that the assignment of the Procurement Committee is to draft an RFP (Request for Proposal), bid the RFP competitively and select a vendor to perform the work articulated in the RFP all in accordance with the State’s procurement laws. Mr. Scollins stated that his role as the Town’s Chief Procurement Officer was to select a Chair to manage the Committee and from this point forward Mr. McCarthy will be the one who will be doing this in every aspect instead of himself. Ms. Thomas opened up the discussion to the Finance Committee members. Mr. Clough provided the following comments. Mr. Clough stated that Mr. McCarthy stated at the Special Town Meeting that he believes the article is unenforceable and Mr. Clough does not understand how the Committee can move forward with the designation of Mr. McCarthy as the Chair. He used an example that the Town would not place someone in charge of the St. Gerard’s property or the renovation of the Galvin Middle School who was in opposition of these projects. In conclusion he stated that this would be a “giant” misappropriation of $200,000 and a different designee in Town should be made by Mr. Scollins as per Ch. 30B section 19 as well as a special counsel outside of the county be assigned to the project. Mr. Clough contacted Mr. McCarthy to be a citizen-at-large to the Committee but Mr. McCarthy indicated he already had two citizens he was considering for the Committee. Mr. Scollins response is a follows. Mr. Scollins fully respects Mr. Clough’s opinion and his right to his opinion. Mr. Scollins is fully aware of public statements that were made by Mr. McCarthy as a private citizen at the STM along with many other private citizens who made statements. Mr. McCarthy’s role and the role of the Finance Committee members as appointed officials is to operate with integrity with their role. Based on experience with Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Scollins believes that Mr. McCarthy will fully operate with complete integrity in completing the assignment and has no reason to believe otherwise. The designation to the Procurement Committee was an authority by a STM vote given to the Chief Procurement Officer who is the Finance Director. Mr. Scollins stood by his decision with the designation of Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Scollins used as an example of Mr. McCarthy’s experience with his involvement in the Galvin Middle School project at holding the project costs down for the project and is working in the best interests for the taxpayer but in a collaborative way. Mr. Scollins did not designate himself as the Procurement Committee Chair because of public concern about having someone in this role with direct connections to the Select Board. (Mr. Scollins reports directly to the Select Board). Ms. Mirliani asked the following questions. Does Mr. Scollins stay involved on some level with the Committee in terms of oversight and moving the process forward or is it now completely out of the Chief Procurement Officer’s hands? Is there a cap on the amount that will be spent on secretarial assistant to the Committee? Mr. Scollins responded that it is completely out of his hands and he is not planning on overseeing the work of the Committee. Mr. Scollins stated that he would be involved only in a ministerial way to help obtain secretarial assistance through HR. Once the Committee has completed their work without his involvement developing the RFP and agreed upon by the Committee, his role would be, and only if asked by Mr. McCarthy, to publish the RFP and ensure that it is in accordance with Ch. 30B procurement laws. Mr. Scollins has seen communication that any cost associated with a secretarial assistant should not come from the $200,000. However, that is not how the article was written. The entire project will be funded with the $200,000 including administrative costs. FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 7 of 11 2/17/24
Source page 8
Ms. Thomas inquired if there would be a consultant fee paid to Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Scollins confirmed that it is an unpaid assignment, similar to the other committees that Mr. McCarthy serves on. Mr. Mauro offered the following comments. While this is a difficult situation to oversee because the majority of people in Town have opinions, the article is the “road map” and the “safety net” because it is “entrenched” in the article that certain things need to be done. The public will be able to follow the process by attending open meetings. The open process can guarantee that the “spirit” and “letter of the article” is implemented. In the end it will result in an audit report that will be made public at a future Town Meeting. There is opportunity for transparency and opportunities for participation for involvement. Mr. Scollins stated that the entire Committee process will be public which will be a “check and balance” as the Committee proceeds. Ms. Thomas commented that one of the issues that came out of STM is perception and that it may be a “hard ask” for many people to “get beyond” Mr. McCarthy’s clear and direct message of how he felt about the Police Audit. She acknowledged that many of the petitioners for this article attended the meeting and that everyone, including the petitioners worked very hard to figure out the article and the impact that language can have, such as “two to be selected by the petitioners”. There were 300+ petitioners for the article. It was not thought through or discussed on how these two selections would take place. Ms. Thomas acknowledged that this process has been a learning experience. Ms. Rita Lombardi, a Canton resident, asked Mr. Scollins the following questions. The petitioners made it clear that they did not want someone affiliated with the Police Department or someone that was a vetted Town employee, but wanted someone who could be objective. She commented from Mr. Scollins January 23rd letter that Mr. McCarthy had served on the Building Renovations Committee, on which the Police Chiefs had served. How do you reconcile Mr. McCarthy being designated to this Committee when the voters made it clear who they did not want on the Committee? Mr. Scollins responded that this was a big part of the challenge for trying to select the most appropriate person with the experience to manage a procurement like this. Mr. Scollins challenged the attendees at the meeting to find anyone in the community that is a Town employee that did not have an opinion on this study. Mr. Scollins chose someone with great integrity that could work beyond their personal opinion. It was difficult to find someone that had no opinion and zero affiliation to head this Committee so he chose to focus in on someone with great integrity who will satisfy the intent of the article. Ms. Lombardi stated that this Committee has a project to work on and that she has 30 years of experience in the corporate industry in project leadership and never would the industry select someone to sit on a committee that did not clearly believe in the project’s objectives. You would want someone that “believes in the cause” that “would lead the team”. She does not think Mr. McCarthy believes in the cause. She questioned Mr. McCarthy’s integrity because he had two citizens-at-large already chosen upon his appointment as the Chair. Ms. Lombardi also referred to language in Mr. Scollins letter that stated the members would be chosen through a “democratic process” which she does not see written into the language of the article. Ms. Lombardi asked where did the language of “democratic process” come from? Mr. Scollins responded as follows. When Mr. McCarthy was designated, Mr. Scollins stated that he explained the language to Mr. McCarthy in the article, the same explanation that he would have provided to anyone in that position and that he would turn over all the statements of interest that he had received to the designee for that person’s consideration for selection or nomination of two citizens-at-large members. Mr. McCarthy never stated to Mr. Scollins that he had already determined who would be on the Committee and that the starting point was all the documentation turned over to him. Mr. Scollins does not know where Mr. McCarthy is in the process because that is not his concern at this point because he trusts that he will follow the language in the article. Anyone including residents/petitioners/Mr. McCarthy can nominate someone as a citizen-at-large to serve on the Committee. It is the Chair’s authority under the article to select anyone who is “nominated” to be the citizen-at-large who is qualified with the best experience to be successful with the Committee. With regard to integrity, anyone (including Mr. McCarthy) in the Town, including those on the Zoom meeting, are entitled to give their opinion. However, once a person is serving in their public role, they are held to a higher standard to be professional and conduct themselves with integrity. With regard to the two petitioners being selected through a “democratic process”, the language in the article is clear that petitioners need to be engaged to nominate two people on the Committee by going through a nomination process. The petitioners need to be asked who they would like to serve on the Committee, in essence a vote, or a democractic process. Ms. Lombardi’s response was that petitioners came to her and Ms. Howley and asked them to be on the Committee as well as run for Select Board. Ms. Lombardi suggested that, if needed, they would go door-to-door to obtain signatures for nomination to the Committee instead of having to pay a secretary to mail petitioners letters. Mr. Scollins stated that it is not her process to run and that it is the Chair’s process to manage. Mr. Scollins and Ms. Lombardi disagreed that Mr. Scollins added language to the motion to the article. Ms. Thomas reminded everyone that they were not at the meeting to argue but to listen to differences of opinion and that it is important for everyone to “put their concerns on the table” but the goal for the evening was to listen. Ms. Lombardi appreciated Ms. Thomas’ comment and apologized. Ms. Thomas emphasized the importance of the dialogue FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 8 of 11 2/17/24
Source page 9
and is hopeful that this will help the community to move forward and that while everyone may not agree with how they get there, everyone has a common goal. Ms. Howley, Canton resident, thanked Ms. Thomas. Ms. Howley stated that she is the lead petitioner noted that over 1,700 people showed up for an STM when historically only 300 people would have attended an STM. She stated that she would meet with anyone that would like to know more about their “core structure” of people who worked very hard on this petition. They are concerned about the safety of the people in the Town. Ms. Howley appreciated Mr. Scollins acknowledging his conflicts. Mr. Scollins asked for further explanation. Ms. Howley stated that Mr. Scollins acknowledged that he had a conflict because he reported directly to the Select Board. She further stated that to solve that conflict Mr. Scollins picked Mr. McCarthy and that it was a way to solve that conflict. Ms. Howley stated that by picking Mr. McCarthy (adamantly opposed at STM to the audit) , Mr. Scollins made the Select Board the happiest. Ms. Howley does not believe that Mr. McCarthy is a solution to Mr. Scollins’ conflict and it made it worse. Ms. Howley is hopeful that they are not thought of as “winging it” at Select Board meetings and that they do their research and come informed, the same manner of being informed that they are approaching the audit. The $200,000 was arrived at by the petitioners through a Zoom meeting with a national company for an independent audit of the Police Department (which had not had an audit done before, adding to the cost). Ms. Howley stated there is no mention in the article for hiring a secretary for administerial purposes. Ms. Howley stated that the Town has a tight election schedule and that running an election for the two petitioners to serve on the Committee is not really an election and the Town does not have secretaries running an election. Ms. Howley believes that Mr. Scollins decision to designate Mr. McCarthy as Chair could not make the petitioners unhappier and Mr. Scollins decision has had the opposite effect of what he wanted to do. Mr. Scollins apologized to Ms. Howley for interrupting her. Ms. Howley complimented the Finance Committee for their efforts in putting the language together for the article but it did not occur to her that the Finance Committee was suggesting that an election be held. She assumed that the Finance Committee would leave the decision of selecting the two petitioners up to the core group. Ms. Howley stated that Mr. Scollins has chosen the one person that will drive the Town apart the most. Ms. Foley had the following question. What changed from the time that the Article was written and to the time the decision was made to pick a designee to Chair the Committee instead of yourself? Mr. Scollins stated that the decision was made out of respect for the petitioners who clearly stated they did not want people who directly reported to the Select Board. Mr. Clough inquired as follows: How would an election take place for people that have procurement experience? How was a designee selected without the Inspector General’s approval? Mr. Scollins stated that there is no requirement from the Inspector General to approve what the Chief Procurement Officer is authorized to do in the motion. Ms. Scollins was not in agreement with Mr. Clough’s statement that the appointment letter had to be brought forth to the Inspector General. With regard to the nominating process for the two petitioners to serve on the committee, the nominating process is to suggest someone for a position. Ms. Thomas suggested that given the lateness of the hour approaching 10:00 p.m. that individuals speak if they are bringing new information to the discussion. Mr. McKenna commented as follows - while Mr. McKenna has not worked with Mr. McCarthy, he does have faith in Mr. Scollins’ selection of Mr. McCarthy and that the Committee will select a qualified consultant that will review the Police Department. What would be the recourse if people started to feel the process is not being run in a quality manner for getting to the selection of a consultant? Mr. Scollins stated that if that if the scenario were to play out which he highly doubts will happen, the recourse would be the same action for other projects in the community, would be to bring the article forward again and get another vote with the article rewritten. Ms. Thomas stated that if the Committee were to find the $200,000 is not enough to cover the hiring of the most qualified consultant, the Town does have the Finance Committee and that the Procurement Committee could reach out to for additional funds through the Finance Committee’s Reserve Fund process. Mr. Scollins agrees with Ms. Thomas. Ms. Lombardi stated that if Mr. McCarthy were to choose two citizens-at-large that were opposed to the audit, that would leave an imbalance of the Committee with three members opposed and two members supportive of the audit. How do you expect there to be productive conversations and discussions if the Committee is imbalanced? Mr. Scollins stated that committee members who are opposed to the audit would not be able to cancel it because that is not an option. The project has to go forward, the vendor has to be selected and the work has to be done through congeniality of the Committee. Mr. Birmingham stated that with all due respect, he did not think that Mr. Scollins answered his question with regard to the use of the words “democratic process”. The “democratic process” in Mr. Scollins’ appointment letter is not clear to Mr. Birmingham exactly what that means. He asked to address the scope of the project. If the Town Clerk is not involved and it does not apply to the designee’s process, it is unfair and unclear and clarification is needed on how that is going to happen. Mr. Scollins stated within the language of the motion he believes that the word “nominate” is FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 9 of 11 2/17/24
Source page 10
included. Nominate is a democratic principle. Individuals are nominated for a position, similar to the nomination process occurring across the country in all the states. The language of “democratic process” is the framework of what was passed in the motion, i.e. to conduct a nominating process or a “democratic process”. If we can only use the exact words that are included in the motion and not try to understand intent, the process will not go anywhere and will not serve anyone well. Mr. Scollins firmly believes that “nominates” involves a democratic process. Mr. Birmingham is struggling with the language to nominate that applies to the citizens-at-large members but that does not seem to be articulated that the same process will apply to the at-large members as to the petitioner members. Mr. Birmingham requested of Mr. McCarthy and recommended to Mr. Scollins in a 10-page memorandum his suggestions of how to proceed and strongly asked that Mr. McCarthy consider establishing selection criteria that is very clear that can be pointed to if that criteria is not followed as part of the selection to the awarded contract to a consultant. He also requested that when the scoping of this contract is established that it clarifies and expands and the Committee agrees to what the terms are duly noted as within to specificity as mentioned in the article as to administrative procedures and compliance review that criteria needs to be established before any decision is made. Mr. Scollins agrees with Mr. Birmingham, and that is the role of the Committee to “flesh this out” so it ultimately reflects the will of the vote as reflected in the Article. Ms. Howley anticipates three “no” votes on the Committee can limit the scope to Tuesdays and Thursdays, and that they can limit it however they want and they can also limit what ends up in the report that may not be seen in an open meeting. Mr. Scollins expressed his disapointment at the presumptions that are being made about a Committee that has yet to be formed to start their work. Ms. Thomas stated that the Finance Committee had spent one hour on the discussion of the Procurement Committee for the Police Department Audit and suggested bringing the discussion to an end. Ms. Thomas thanked everyone for their concerns and perspectives. Next Meeting Date: The next meeting would take place on February 14, 2024 as a virtual meeting via Zoom. Meeting Adjournment - A motion made by Ms. Schutt to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:20 p.m. was seconded by Mr. Mauro. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Schutt Aye Mr. Cole Aye Ms. Mirliani Aye Mr. Clough Aye Mr. McKenna Aye Mr. Mauro Aye Ms. Foley Aye Ms. Thomas Aye Vote: 8-0-0. Minutes reviewed by: Ms. Mirliani Respectfully submitted, Cindy Thomas Chair, Canton Finance Committee and Sub-Committee to Review Compensation of Elected Officials FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 10 of 11 2/17/24
Source page 11
Finance Committee
Meeting Documents
February 7, 2024
Please note: Some meeting documents may be found on the Town’s website under the Posted Minutes
section (Laser Fiche).
Budget documents discussed at the meeting may be found on the Town’s Website under the Finance Committee
section. The budget documents are subject to change as the budget process progresses. The documents may also
be found at the below links.
https://town.canton.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/10987/FY25-Municipal-Budget---Dept-Requests---Jan-2024---Part-
1-of-2
https://town.canton.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/10988/FY25-Municipal-Budget---Dept-Requests---Jan-2024---Part-
2-of-2
Revere and Son Heritage Trust Finance Presentation, provided by Alan Hines dated February 7, 2024 (9 pages).
Revenue Estimate for FY 2025 General Fund Operating Budgets, Prepared for The Revenue Forecasting Committee,
For Discussion Purposes dated February 6, 2024 (12 pages).
Follow-up to Auditor’s Questions – Questions and Answers provided by Randy Scollins (1 page).
FINCOM 20240207 RS KM Minutes.docx Page 11 of 11 2/17/24