Great Barrington — A public hearing on the proposed budget for Fiscal 2023-2024 is scheduled for Wednesday, March 22 at 6 p.m at Town Hall and online via this Zoom link.
During the hearing, the Selectboard and the Finance Committee will listen to input from residents on the proposed budget. The boards will then determine whether or not to make changes to the proposed budget before it is sent to a vote at the annual town meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, May 1, 6 p.m. at Monument Mountain Regional High School.
Previously, Town Manager Mark Pruhenski proposed a town operating budget of $14,738,633, an increase of $844,596, or 6.08 percent, from this fiscal year. However, at its fourth meeting to review the proposed budget, which was held on Wednesday, March 8, members of the Selectboard and Finance Committee directed Pruhenski and town staff to find $150,000 to $200,000 in reductions in the proposed budget.
Pruhenski presented his proposed cuts to members of both boards at the fifth budget review meeting on Tuesday, March 14.
At the March 14 meeting, Pruhenski said that, to achieve the budget reduction goal, he eliminated two of the proposed positions in the Fiscal 2023-2024 budget: the information technology director and the assistant Department of Public Works superintendent positions. Pruhenski said that the elimination of the information technology director position would save the town $37,500, and the elimination of the assistant DPW superintendent would save the town $20,500.
Because of the two cuts, the town would save an additional $25,000 total in health and life insurance benefits. Pruhenski also proposed cuts to various line items, totaling $167,224. “I would just point out that my priority for this year, first and foremost, is public safety,” Pruhenski said. “The [additional proposed] patrol officer and firefighter positions are still in the budget. The [proposed assistant accountant] finance position was closely followed as a priority because we have an upcoming upgrade to our [finance] system this year. I think that’s going to take a lot of time and attention from our finance staff.”
“I keep hearing that the reason for the new assistant in the finance office is because this year is going to be particularly busy,” Finance Committee member Anne O’Dwyer said. “But is it wise to have a full-time permanent position for a one-year project? I keep hearing that the reason for this [position] is that we have this [finance system] upgrade coming up. But will that be something that will require more work forever, or just for this upcoming year?”
“I believe that there will be more work [forthcoming] for this department,” town Finance Coordinator Allie Crespo said. “We’re growing as a town and we have much more vendors and invoices that need to be paid. Activity has picked up, even in the time that I’ve been here. I think that the trajectory it’s going on, we do need a full-time person.” (Crespo was hired in December by the town.)
Pruhenski added that “the accountant’s office is one of the only remaining [town] offices that’s a one-person office at this point. We have no coverage in that office.”
Later on during the meeting, Finance Committee Chair Phillip Orenstein questioned whether or not it was a good idea to eliminate the proposed assistant DPW superintendent position. “The way I look at it is that we need to provide [DPW Superintendent Joseph Aberdale] with a little more support,” Orenstein said. “Especially given the increase in the number of projects going on.”
“I think anything we can do to sort of reduce the tax increase to residents this year,” O’Dwyer said. “It’s a tough year for a lot of people in terms of finances, including for us. I think we should try to keep it as close to what the cost of living increases had been estimated to be. I think we all know that people are struggling to sort of deal with the high tax rate in Great Barrington. So anything we can do to manage it and keep offering services.”
Pruhenski said he would propose an assistant DPW superintendent position and an information technology director position in the Fiscal 2024-2025 budget.
Members of both boards debated the salary of a part-time co-responder position for the Police Department. In the proposed budget, the Police Department requests $12,000 for the position, while Pruhenski recommends $5,000.
However, Selectboard Chair Stephen Bannon said that the line item was raised to $25,000 through the use of Community Impact Funds. “I did have an opportunity to chat with [Town Attorney David Doneski], and his advice was to do some research and find out what percentage of our co-responder calls were as a result of some kind of substance abuse,” Pruhenski said. “We don’t have that information. I spoke to [Police Chief Paul Storti] today. He said perhaps our co-responder has that information, but she no longer works for the town. Moving forward, if and when we do hire a co-responder, whether that’s a shared position for some other program, we will start to track that in the coming fiscal year. We just don’t have enough information available to us for our attorney to feel comfortable with that decision at this point.”
Eventually, members of both boards unanimously approved adding $7,000 to the co-responder line item on top of Pruhenski’s recommended $5,000, which would bring it up to the $12,000 that was originally proposed by Chief Storti.
Proposed reductions in special articles
As part of his proposed reductions, Pruhenski proposed the removal of two special articles totaling $325,000 to increase the town’s free cash to reduce the tax levy.
Pruhenski requested to remove a special article for $176,000 to fund the town’s Other Post‐Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust. As listed in the proposed budget documents, “The town recognizes the importance of funding its unfunded OPEB liability of approximately $15 million and is committed to commence annual appropriations to ensure the long‐term financial stability of the town. Along with this initial appropriation, the town will re‐purpose the balance of $820,918.63 from the Pension Reserve Trust fund to the OPEB Trust fund to create a $1 million reserve.”
While members of both boards went along with Pruhenski’s suggestion to cut the OPEB special article, there was some considerable debate about the special article that would provide $150,000 for Housatonic Water Works customers to provide temporary relief. Pruhenski proposed cutting the special article because he said it appears the state will be funding the $150,000. He told members of both boards that he has been in contact with State Rep. William “Smitty” Pignatelli (D), and that a bill that will fund the $150,000 is before the state senate.
But this still made several members of the Finance Committee nervous about whether or not the potential funding would be given by the state. “My feeling is that this is such a hot-button issue in the town,” Finance Committee member Richard Geiler said. “I would hate to give the sense that we were removing something … we’re assuring the Housatonic Water Works people that we are backing them. I’m having a feeling from Mark’s [conversation with Rep. Pignatelli] that the senate is going to pass [the bill], but I’d like to see it in [the proposed budget] as a sense of good faith for Housatonic, and then we can remove it [once state funds are received].” Rep. Pignatelli did not respond to an email query for this article.
After much discussion, members of both boards decided to keep the special article for $150,000 in relief for Housatonic Water Works customers.
Towards the end of the meeting, after all of Pruhenski’s suggested cuts were debated, the number of agreed cuts to the proposed budget totaled $160,224.
While members of the Finance Committee unanimously agreed to the cuts, the Selectboard’s vote on the cuts was 4-1, with Selectboard member Ed Abrahams voting against the cuts. “I just that I think it’s a mistake to nickel and dime it down [the budget],” Abrahams said. “I don’t think it helps individuals enough to do the cuts from what Mark thought was a reasonable budget.”
After the meeting, in separate emails to The Berkshire Edge, neither Pruhenski nor Orenstein could give a bottom line number on the revised proposed operating budget for Fiscal 2023-2024. “Given that these numbers are changing I think it’s best you get your answers direct from town staff,” Orenstein wrote to The Edge in an email.
According to calculations, as of the March 14 meeting, after cuts are tallied into the proposed operating budget, it stands at $14,578,409, an increase of $684,372, or 4.9 percent, from this fiscal year.
