(12/21) At its December meeting, the Town Council discussed calls for more accurate accountability in detailed budget line items and in meeting minutes.

When providing her first report on the Town’s finances as the new Town Treasurer, Valerie Turnquist noted that the FY24 anticipated Sewer Fund revenue was 1 million. However, according to the cash activity report provided by the town, the Sewer Fund had a $3.6 million balance. The town’s total cash balances, including the 3.6 million in the Sewer Fund and $300,000 in the Water Fund, totaled $8.9 million.

Turnquist questioned where the $3.6 million was coming from.

Town Manager Cathy Willets explained that the $3.6 million is the cash reserves in the Sewer Enterprise Fund and stated that these funds can carry over from prior years. She further explained that the $3.6 million is not in the actual FY24 budget as it is a separate item from the anticipated Sewer Fund revenue. Amounts that are not used from budgets go into reserves to be used for assets or large purchase items, according to Willets. The $1 million is budgeted and is added to the amount on hand, which in this case is the $3.6 million in the sewer fund, she said. The $3.6 million is not what was reflected in the FY-24 budget as they are two separate items, Willets noted.

Recognizing that his fellow Commissioners were now totally confused, Commissioner Jim Hoover, drawing on his prior experience as former Mayor, chimed in and said the Enterprise Fund did not have to be balanced at the end of the year, and that any unspent money form the General Fund went into the Enterprise Fund balance.

However Turnquist pressed her opinion that the $3.6 million needed to be reflected in the budget somewhere, whether it was in the Enterprise Fund or not. Willet said the Town Auditor could clear up the confusion and proposed that a presentation on the subject be given at an upcoming workshop. Willets however did admit that there might be a better way to share information related to the Town’s finances to make it easier to read and understand.

The workshop, to be held in January, will be used, in part, to revamp the information in the monthly financial report to better show where money is allocated and what is truly available to spend going forward as well as to discuss the proposed water rate increase. In addition, the February workshop will be used to brainstorm project prioritization for the Town.

"That will give everybody the opportunity to voice their opinion and set the priorities for the town for the next several years," Mayor Davis said.

Additionally, Turnquist set the stage for discussion of more transparent accountability by opening the meeting with the refusal to approve the meeting minutes from the November 6th meeting, citing that the records did not reflect the actual meeting. Turnquist said questions and commitments regarding the lengthy facade grant SOP discussion in the November meeting were not reflected in the minutes. As of the meeting, Turnquist said, the revised SOP, reflecting those discussions, had yet to be submitted to the Council.

Town staff said that meeting minutes are meant as a reflection of the most important aspects of the meeting, including approval and vote records. Typically, minutes are supposed to be condensed to what was done, not necessarily everything that was said, according to Willets.

Turnquist claimed that if the minutes did not detail what was said and discussed, then it was not a true reflection or an accurate recording of the meeting, and that it would be difficult to ensure the Town staff took the actions Council members had asked them to do.

Commissioner Jim Hoover commented that meeting minutes are not supposed to be a word for word transcript of the meetings, but to highlight the most important points discussed and what was proposed and accepted in motions. However, he went on to say that if something was important enough to be captured, that in the future, Commissioners needed to expand the scope of details in their motions.