Rutland select board approves corrected police budget, discusses SRO costs and authorizes cruiser quote

The Rutland Select Board on Jan. 14 approved a corrected police department budget and discussed costs tied to the town's School Resource Officer and a planned cruiser replacement.

Board members voted to present the police operating budget to voters as $693,135 after reconciling use of a local Cortina fund and correcting an earlier tally. The board then reviewed updated SRO cost figures and authorized staff to finalize a vehicle quote and accompanying finance/lease paperwork for a replacement cruiser that is currently on a dealer lot.

The corrected police budget reflects an adjustment tied to the town's Cortina fund. Town staff reported that an amount previously expected from that fund had been accounted for in the prior vote and that the printed proposed budget no longer included the $150,000 draw the board had expected; staff said the ballot amount to be presented to voters is $693,135. The board made a motion to present that corrected figure and approved it by voice vote (5–0). The motion did not record a named mover or seconder in the public record.

Separately, town staff and members of the police committee reviewed the School Resource Officer (SRO) line. Committee figures discussed a blended cost of roughly $45 per hour to the town when the position is billed to the school (the figure described by staff as including wages and some operating costs but excluding health insurance). Staff presented an employee-total figure of $77,512 for the SRO line and said revenue credited to the SRO in the budget showed approximately $61,020, producing a gap relative to the department's internal total. Board members asked that billing, school payment expectations and what is included in the hourly rate be reconciled so the town and school “are on the same page” about what the town will bill and what the school will pay. No change to the budget line was made at the meeting.

The board also considered purchasing a replacement cruiser. Vendors quoted a fully equipped Tahoe with add-ons and an alternative F‑150 pickup; the Massachusetts dealer had a cruiser on the lot ready for delivery. After discussion about price, available options to remove unneeded equipment and the town's depreciation/lease financing options, the board authorized staff to finalize a revised quote with the dealer (removing unnecessary items) and to sign a finance/lease agreement on behalf of the board. The motion to authorize finalizing the revised quote and finance/lease agreement passed by voice vote (motion carried, unanimous). Staff said the final purchase price would be reduced from the initial gross quote after removing items not needed.

Meeting discussion identified practical constraints: staffing and actual SRO days differ from the full-school-day assumption used to estimate annual cost; vehicle delivery and equipment backorders create timing uncertainty; and the town's depreciation/repair funds and Cortina fund balances will determine whether purchase or lease is preferable. Board members asked staff to return with the revised quote, the proposed finance/lease paperwork and a clear reconciliation of SRO billing assumptions before final budget presentation to voters.

Votes and formal actions taken on police-related items were recorded by voice vote; the meeting transcript shows no roll-call vote list of names for each yes/no vote. The board indicated unanimous support for the motions described above and recorded motion outcomes as approved.

The board's discussion of SRO funding, cruiser replacement timing and the corrected ballot police-figure will be reflected in the final warning and budget materials distributed to voters ahead of town meeting.