Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood recreation commission backs budget plan that keeps proposed program coordinator pay; will present to select board
Summary
After a lengthy discussion of revenue, audit delays and overspent land-maintenance lines, the Brentwood Recreation Commission voted to move Proposal B — which reallocates existing funds toward land maintenance while retaining the requested program-coordinator salary — to the Select Board for final review.
The Brentwood Recreation Commission voted to forward “Proposal B,” a draft 2026 budget that keeps the proposed increase for the recreation program coordinator and reallocates $1,700 into land maintenance, to the Select Board for consideration.
Commissioners debated two approaches: Proposal A, which trims electric and heating lines to cushion a salary increase, and Proposal B, which shifts those funds into land and facilities maintenance that the department regularly overspends. After discussion the commission voted to present Proposal B to the Select Board on Oct. 28.
The issue that re-opened the discussion was an accounting discrepancy discovered in the current-year budget: the salary line for the program coordinator and associated FICA/Medicare items had not been carried correctly into the commission’s working documents. "I was found out a day or 2 ago that that was incorrect," the recreation director said during the meeting, describing the discovery. He told commissioners the figure the town appropriated this year was different from what appeared in the packet, and that the department had adjusted payroll lines and state‑retirement math to correct the totals. "I, unfortunately, do not gonna have that number... I'm at the mercy of the auditor to this point," he added, noting that outstanding audit work has delayed access to some supporting invoices.
Why it matters: the recreation budget is overwhelmingly a personnel budget (the commission discussed salaries and benefits making up the bulk of the proposed $135,000 request) but the department also runs programs and facility rentals that produce revenue. Commissioners and staff emphasized that those program revenues — notably the summer camp, which staff said has grown to generate roughly $48,000 in recent years — offset town appropriations and help keep program costs affordable.
Supporters of Proposal B argued that the commission has historically overspent the land‑maintenance line (contract lawn care, infield work and irrigation) and that moving the money into a land/facilities line reflects known recurring needs. Opponents urged caution, recommending tighter cuts to operating lines and suggesting fee increases for users as an alternative. The commission directed staff to supply historical land‑maintenance spending (three years of actuals) and other supporting documents to the Select Board before the presentation.
The commission also discussed how incremental changes will be scrutinized by the Select Board and the budget committee, and staff were asked to prepare a concise packet showing year‑over‑year program revenue, expenditures and the net benefit of recreation programs to the town's overall finances.
Next steps: Commission staff will finalize materials and deliver them to the Select Board agenda; the commission voted to move Proposal B forward but agreed to request a short extension from town staff if audit or accounting work prevents staff from delivering supporting documentation before the Select Board hearing.
