Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Detail Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions $70 police detail rate; committee explains accounting and administrative charges
Summary
During public comment, a resident asked why the town budgets a $70/hour police detail rate instead of paying officers overtime; committee members said the detail rate includes administrative and cruiser costs and is used for conservative budgeting.
A Brentwood resident raised questions about the town’s use of a $70‑per‑hour police detail rate during public comment at the Nov. 10 budget committee meeting, prompting an explanation from staff and committee members about how the charge is calculated and why it appears in the elections budget.
Mister Miller asked whether the $70 detail rate reflects compensation and benefits or additional administrative costs, and whether the town should instead pay officers their regular hourly rate or overtime when they work elections or town events. "They're already employed by the town, and they have the benefits associated with that position," he said, arguing the town could simply pay overtime when required.
Committee members and staff responded that the town’s detail rate is not just straight pay. The $70/hour figure used in the elections budget is the town’s internal detail rate and, as explained by staff, excludes the administrative billing surcharge that outside entities pay. Staff said the town’s detail calculation reflects cruiser wear‑and‑tear and the administrative costs of billing and managing details; it is also a conservative budgeting practice because budgets must often be prepared assuming a higher‑paid employee may be the one assigned.
Committee members noted that budget practice often uses a higher estimate for overtime/detail lines to cover the highest plausible payroll cost and that adopting a lower estimated cost could risk underestimating expenditures. No policy change was adopted; the exchange concluded with committee members saying they would note the comment and that the budget lines were calculated based on historical rates and administrative charge components.
The public comment came amid broader debate about whether the elections budget should be set for three elections (a lower immediate cost) or for a higher, level‑funded amount to smooth future variability under SB 2 rules. The committee ultimately approved the select board’s elections proposal.
