Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Tooling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee previews new Budget Pro tool and debates how to present health-insurance trends to the public
Summary
The New London Budget Committee reviewed a new budget-analysis tool (Questica/Budget Pro) that aggregates costs across fiscal years and debated whether publishing raw budget-only figures — including steep health-insurance increases — needs added context or disclaimers before public release.
The New London Budget Committee on July 8 reviewed a new budgeting tool and debated how to present budget figures — especially health-insurance trends — to the public.
Presenter introduced the town's new Budget Pro (Questica) software, saying the system allows the committee "for the first time" to "look at cost in a horizontal fashion" across fiscal years and to separate costs department leads control from those outside their control. The presenter said the system can show budget numbers from FY2022 through FY2027 and permit year-to-date budget-versus-actual views once accounts payable and closing entries are posted.
The committee said the system promises better trend analysis and a higher-level view of expenditures that had previously required flipping through departmental pages. "This is a tool for us to identify what those drivers are and, at least, to have that conversation about them," the presenter said, arguing the view "from 30,000 feet" can help the committee surface questions for follow-up.
Several members raised concerns about publishing budget-only figures without context. One committee member warned that presenting a headline percentage such as "a 70% increase in health insurance in five years" could "cause a little panic" among residents who would not dig into underlying factors. That member asked that any public distribution include context about whether figures are budgets (not actuals), changes in headcount, large one-time claims and other factors that affect insurance rates.
The presenter and other members recommended adding a disclaimer or contextual notes when sharing the new visualizations with the public and emphasized that the numbers currently shown are budget estimates rather than finalized actuals. Staff replied that once accounts are posted the system can provide budget-to-actual snapshots, but cautioned some adjustments (auditor entries, accounts payable) will remain pending for a short period.
Committee members also discussed statutory roles and timing. Staff noted that under state law the committee reviews the proposed budget submitted by the board of selectmen and that the committee's ability to view year-to-date reports is useful but does not change the committee's statutory role.
Next steps: committee members asked the presenter and staff to refine the presentation materials for public release (adding explanatory text and disclaimers) and to bring clearer budget-to-actual examples when year-to-date postings permit. The committee did not take a formal vote on budget decisions at the meeting.
