2009 Annual Report.pdf - Town of Milton

udget for FY10 would result in an override of an amount approaching
$5,000,000. The Committee decided that such a number was simply unrealistic
and decided not to pursue a level service budget. We also wanted to approach
the override in a way that was fair and rational for all departments. We decided
that proposing an override that would simply provide funds to maintain current
staffing levels was not sustainable into FY11 without the need for another override
in FY11. We were also concerned that over several years the budgets for
general operating and maintenance expense has continued to shrink. The most
dramatic example of this is the fact equipment maintenance in the Public Works
vehicle maintenance budget for FY09 was $15,000. We decided to try as best
we could to make sure that the departments had enough funding in the personnel
line item to allow them to operate, and then to focus on non-salaried items.
The Warrant Committee decided to build a contingent budget using a bottom
up approach. We did not have a contingent number in mind when we started
the process. The first step in the process was to start with the non-contingent
budget for each department and build up. Each department was first brought
back to level dollar funding with the FY09 appropriation that was voted in May
2008 and amended in October 2008. The committee then focused on each department’s
impact statements to decide what was important to add back to the
budgets. For the School budget we added funding for school athletics, SPED out
of district tuitions, lost Medicaid reimbursements and teachers for enrollment
growth and Annual Yearly Progress. For Police we added back funds for police
cruisers, other police equipment, three patrolmen and two cadets. For the DPW
budget, we added $150,000 to the Vehicle Maintenance budget, $280,000 to
restore Yard Waste pickup and additional amounts for construction materials
and staffing. We approached each of the major budgets in a similar manner.
Our plan contemplated each department absorbing any pay increases for FY10
in their operating budget. We did not provide a set aside for wage increases that
were not in departmental requests. The FY10 non-contingent budgets were not
sufficient to fund pay increases or step increases and maintain current staffing
levels. While we added back funds to restore positions we did not add back
funds for pay increases with the exception of step and lane increases and
longevity increases. When the Committee completed this process we had a contingent
budget that was approximately $2,900,000 over the non-contingent
budget. This budget was submitted to department heads and the School Department
for comment and impact. When we heard back from the departments
we realized that the small departments would not be able to operate without
some additional funding for personnel. The Schools needed approximately
$130,000 more to ensure that they would be able to keep all of the schools open.
Police and Fire required additional personnel funding to be able to maintain
minimal manning to allow them to operate effectively. After listening to the de-
278