The Harwich Capital Outlay Committee moved to tighten the town’s financial planning process on Wednesday, voting to mandate that all future five-year capital plans include specific, identified funding sources for every proposed project. The decision marks a significant shift toward fiscal transparency as the town navigates a "CEO-style" management transition and faces a looming wave of infrastructure failures in facilities built nearly 25 years ago.

The committee spent much of the session refining proposed revisions to the Town Charter, specifically focusing on the Town Administrator’s role in capital planning. Committee member Paul presented language for Section 4.3.2 that would require the Town Manager to annually solicit requests from department heads and present a rolling five-year draft. While Paul initially advocated for a mandatory 10-year facilities master plan, Town Manager Tony Schiavi warned that such a rigid requirement could create legal liabilities if the town lacked the funds to hire necessary consultants. I don't think it should be mandated in the charter because it's dependent on funding, Schiavi told the committee. If you mandate it and there's no funding, you've violated the charter. Following the caution, Paul withdrew the 10-year mandate.

Motion Made by P. [Paul] to approve the revised language for Section 4.3.2C requiring the Town Administrator to annually solicit capital requests and propose a draft five-year plan in consultation with the committee. Motion Passed (6-0-0).

A debate emerged over the level of financial detail residents should see in the capital plan. Member Scott pushed for the inclusion of comprehensive data, including debt service costs and tax rate impacts for every item. The big change I've been promoting is that every expenditure in the five-year plan needs a proposed funding source, Scott said. Even if the estimate is wrong, it gives the best estimate we have. However, Chair Martha expressed concern over the difficulty of accurately forecasting debt service five years into the future. Schiavi agreed, noting that debt schedules are typically the purview of the Finance Committee. We can provide the impact on a median tax bill for major borrowings at town meeting, but mandating it in this plan for every item five years out is difficult, Schiavi said. Martha concluded, So we will include the project time schedule and proposed source of funds, but take out the debt servicing cost and tax rate impact.

Motion Made by P. [Paul] to approve revised Section 9.6.1 requiring a concise narrative and a financial document listing project schedules and proposed sources of funds. Motion Passed (6-0-0).

The committee also moved to formally define what constitutes a "capital expenditure" to avoid ambiguity during budget cycles. Member Michelle emphasized the need to include modern town needs. I want to make sure it's complete and includes things like technology upgrades, not just buildings, Michelle noted. The committee reached a consensus on a $50,000 threshold for such items. Additionally, members discussed the "political" risk of filing minority reports to Town Meeting. Schiavi cautioned that highlighting disagreements between boards could create a negative atmosphere on the floor. If you say you voted on 17 items and disagreed on three, it establishes something negative at town meeting. It's political, Schiavi said. The final language allows the committee the option to file a report without making it a requirement.

Motion Made by P. [Paul] to approve Section 9.5.2 regarding the collaboration process and Section 9.6.2 defining capital outlay as expenditures of $50,000 or more. Motion Passed (6-0-0).

Looking ahead, Schiavi informed the committee that department head requests are due this week. The committee plans to begin hearing formal presentations on October 22, with a goal of finishing the review by December.