GREENWOOD TWP- Once again, the treasurer’s report at the Greenwood Town Board meeting, Oct. 8, drew some questions from the supervisors.
“We got this right before the meeting,” said Chair Lois Roskoski. “Part of the treasurer’s job is to reconcile their reports with the clerk’s reports.” Roskoski asked why treasurer Jeff Maus had not submitted a Schedule 1 report, as requested by the board.
“There were still some discrepancies to clear up,” said Maus, who again noted that the treasurer had not been tasked with doing a Schedule 1 report since he had assumed the office over two years ago.
“None of the Schedule 1s match,” said Roskoski.
Maus told the board that his financial report to the board includes the numbers coming directly from the township’s bank statements. He said that sometimes reading these reports is complicated, and that they show different totals depending on if the CD was being cashed out on a specific date, rather than the month-end value. He also told the board, once again, that all the financial data is not available on the first of the month. For the township’s CD accounts, he said, the information is not available until the next week, sometimes eight days into the month.
Maus has previously told the board he was not willing to present financial information to the board that he wasn’t sure was correct.
“You can’t just compare the bank statement to a Schedule 1,” he said.
Part of the problem continues to be a lack of information sharing between the clerk and the treasurer.
“The clerk and treasurer do need to start cooperating,” said Roskoski.
A motion to approve the treasurer’s report died for lack of a second, and the report was not approved.
Former clerk Sue Drobac, from the audience, asked why the receipt report from the clerk and treasurer did not match.
Roskoski noted that the inconsistency, which totaled less than a dollar, had been resolved, and it had to do with a tiny interest payment. She said an updated version of the report had been printed out, a revision of the version sent with the agenda packet.
“The board is ultimately responsible for the financial information of the township,” said Roskoski. “The two of you need to get together to make sure the reports match.” She added that at the end of the year, if accounts are not matching, the board would look at hiring an outside auditor, a very costly move.
The board agenda included an updated printout of the segregation of duties between the clerk and treasurer, showing which office is responsible for specific tasks. While the supervisors do not have the authority to tell the elected clerk and treasurer what to do, they are responsible for oversight of the township’s finances.
Maus did state that he was willing to get together with the clerk and agree on how to separate duties to ensure they are completed on a timely basis. Last month, checks did not get mailed out promptly because while Maus had printed them out, he didn’t realize he was responsible for physically mailing them.
Roskoski asked if the township’s 2025 budget had ever been updated to include the levy of $300,000, which was higher than the $175,000 proposed in the township budget.
Supervisor John Bassing, who had prepared the budget as chairman at the time, said he had not done any revisions.
Roskoski asked if Maus could do this, but Maus said this wasn’t anything he had done before. “John built the budget,” Maus said. “Historically, the treasurer has never been involved in the budget.” The township treasurer does not have authority over any spending, since that is a duty of the supervisors.
Roskoski asked why the board wasn’t getting financial reports throughout the year that showed actual versus budgeted spending. She wondered if the township had enough cash on hand to cover expenses through the end of the year, since the checking account balance was below $100,000. Bassing told her the township will be receiving their second half of their 2024 levy payment in December, of $75,000.
Bassing also told her that it was relatively simple to see the township’s year-to-date spending, by taking expenditures and subtracting them from the budget.
Arsenic testing
The board reviewed results from the most recent water testing of the potable water source at the town hall. The Brassmaster filtration system brought arsenic levels down significantly, but they were still higher than the EPA’s acceptable levels for a drinking water source. The cost to replace the filtration media is over $2,000, and it appears this may be an annual expense.
“This is a discussion we need to have,” said supervisor Craig Gilbert. “It seems like a lot of money to keep spending on water, but it’s part of the township’s duty.”
Roskoski said that legally the township does not have to supply this water, and can just label the spigot as non-potable.
Bassing said the township should get more detailed testing of the water supply to see what type of arsenic is causing the problem, because one of the types of arsenic is more reactive, and hence, more troublesome. Bassing contacted a different testing outfit and will get that testing done.
No action was taken on replacing the filtration media.
Other business
In other business, the board discussed performance evaluations for the fire department employees and chief. The board will have fire department members review the evaluation forms to see if they have any suggestions, before putting the evaluation policy into place.