Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee flags spending and oversight concerns, from EMS purchases to welfare funding cuts
Summary
Committee members raised oversight concerns including $12,000 in advanced EMS supplies the ambulance cannot use, confusion about purchase-policy compliance, and a select-board cut of $7,000 for social-service partners that may increase town welfare expenses.
Budget committee members told the New Durham Budget Committee they are concerned about apparent spending decisions and reduced outside support that could leave the town with uncovered obligations.
The chair said medical-supply lines are heavily depleted and that the town purchased roughly $12,000 of advanced paramedic supplies that the committee says cannot be used because the ambulance is not licensed to carry paramedic medications: "We've purchased a ton of medical supplies we can't use, and we are 5 months into this," the chair said. Members said those purchases may not have followed the updated purchasing policy and described the situation as being handled by the select board as a personnel issue.
Separately, members warned that the select board reduced appropriations to local social-service partners (for example, CAP and VNA) from $7,000 to $1, which committee members said will likely shift hundreds of thousands of dollars of fuel, housing and medical assistance demands onto the town's welfare account. One member said as of mid‑March the town had spent about $6,900 on housing from a budgeted $5,000 line.
Why it matters: The committee said purchases that exceed authorized approval thresholds and cuts to partner funding could both produce unexpected operating-pressure and legal/HR questions. Members discussed the limits of the budget committee's authority in personnel matters and the need for clearer policies and documented purchase procedures.
Details: Discussion included the purchase-policy thresholds (department heads can authorize budgeted expenditures up to a stated limit; larger amounts require TA or select-board approval), the need to reconcile where some expense lines were posted, and the suggestion to codify response procedures when a department does not provide requested budget information. Committee members also discussed transferring grant and CRF (Capital Reserve Fund) receipts to proper accounts and the ambiguity created when grant proceeds were posted to general revenue rather than the intended CRF.
Next steps: The chair said she submitted documentation of the concerns to the select board; the committee will request clearer itemized line‑item attachments from departments and will monitor welfare and EMS lines during the next quarter.
