Brattleboro Selectboard Chair David Gartenstein led an informational meeting at Oak Grove School Wednesday night. The topic was the special referendum vote on April 17, the town budget, and the Police and Fire Facility project. Not counting Town staff, Selectpersons, and Town Meeting Reps, about 36 members of the public attended.
Gartenstein first gave an overview of the proposed budget and the work that went into creating it, all familiar to regular readers of Selectboard Meeting Notes. His main point was that it was a lean, level-service budget, with most of it going to pay staff and benefits.
He also said the town’s basic, core services were police, fire, roads, parks & recreation, and the library.
A handful of questions covering a range of topics came from members of the public. We learned that the amount of debt service each year depends on what we’re paying off at the time and will vary from year to year.
It was confirmed that a cut to the budget could result in job cuts, that a rejected budget would then be reworked and resubmitted to a special town meeting, and that payments for the Police-Fire bonds would increase before they decrease over a twenty year period.
Gartenstein said there were only four ways for the town to raise money: property taxes, and three local option taxes. He said they could consider a local option income tax, a gas tax, and payments in lieu of taxes for non-profits.
John Allen said the Grand List needed to grow.
There was a discussion of how industry-friendly the town is, and whether top paid staff should take cuts to help “share the pain.” Gartenstein said there were no hurdles for industry, and that no one on staff is overpaid.
Some staff, he noted, get experience and training here, then get jobs elsewhere at higher pay.
There were questions about a few line items, and whether the Police need as many cars as they have in their fleet. They do, said Police Chief Wrinn. They are on a replacement cycle and some are special-purpose vehicles.
Throughout, citizens voiced concerns about rising costs. “We pay more for less,” said Anne Wright. “It’s a fact of life.” She told the board that to continue doing business as usual would be unsustainable. “We’re at a time to think differently.”
The meeting then focused on the Police and Fire facility project specifically. Gartenstein gave an overview of the project to date. He said the $14.1 million breaks down as $5.5 million for the central fire station, $1.25 million for the West Brattleboro station, and $4.5 million for the police station.
He said the idea to stagger the projects would add costs, but admitted they hadn’t looked into the details of spreading the project out.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland said interest rates were good, and projects cost more when they get delayed. He said all three buildings have urgent needs.
Gartenstein said they had not looked at what they could do if they are limited to the existing $5 million bond.
Hugh Barber suggested they slow the project down and think of other ways to pay for it. He worried about costs being passed on to low income renters.
Helen, a resident of Brattleboro, said that while Brattleboro wants the best for the police and fire staff, perhaps in our zeal we’ve lost sight of the financial impact. She wondered if good facilities could be provided at a lower cost or in a different way. “That’s what you are hearing.”
She said high taxes were making living in Brattleboro prohibitive, and said she had concerns about the traffic impact of three major simultaneous construction projects in town. “Consider slowing it down.”
Rick John said Brattleboro had the highest tax rate in the state, and that after six years of recession, people are barely hanging on. He said he hasn’t seen an acknowledgement of this from town government.
John said that rather than be responsive to the community, “it’s often in the other direction.” He said people don’t feel like the selectboard oversees the town and staff on their behalf. “We all have things we want and need and can’t afford.”
He said the problem is that there is an assumption that the previous year’s budget was a good one. “The approach has been flawed.”
Kate O’Connor said she wants to be able to continue living in Brattleboro. She said she approached the budget with an attitude of “This is too high,” and said more work would be done to lower costs in the next two years of her term. “Business can’t be as usual. We can’t just do it the same way. We want to live here.”
Gartenstein agreed and said Brattleboro can’t raise enough taxes for the services it provides. “We’re in that bind.”
John Allen noted that of the 8,200 registered voters, about 46 were at the meeting and of them, 10 were town meeting reps. “It should be packed. We should have higher turnout. They don’t show up.”
Moss Kahler offered up a suggestion: drop the West Brattleboro fire station entirely and do everything from the downtown station. He wondered if there would be a demand for the West Brattleboro station and the accompanying tax rise if it weren’t already there. And, if it was necessary, shouldn’t there be a north station near exit three?
Kahler said that getting rid of the West Brattleboro station would save the construction costs, plus staff could be reduced for additional savings.
Fire Chief Buccossi said that the West Brattleboro station saves about 3 minutes on a call to that end of town. He noted that it was highly residential and Putney Road was commercial and industrial.
Tad Montgomery asked if tours of the facilities would be given to the public so they could see the spaces under discussion. Gartenstein said that anyone interested could call the Town Manager’s office.
Absentee ballots are available. You can vote right now, or on April 17 at the Municipal Center on Main Street.
flunking captcha
“He said the $14.1 million breaks down as $5.5 million for the central fire station, $1.25 million for the West Brattleboro station, and $4.5 million for the police station.”
Those 3 figures add up to $11.25 mln, not $14.1 mln. So is the extra $2.85 mln interest? If you’re borrowing $11.25 mln & paying $2.85 mln in interest, that would be about 25% – not what I would call a “good” rate. If you’re borrowing $14.1 mln for a set of projects slated to cost $11.25 mln, why are you doing that?
I’m sure there is an explanation for this apparent discrepancy, but I have no way of knowing what it might be. I would love to know why the question wasn’t asked (if that is indeed the case).
Other Expenses
I think the $2.85M is for ancillary expenses: architect, engineering, buying the laundromat above the central fire station, project management, etc. The total project cost, including interest, is projected to be ~$20 million over 20 years.
Lester Humphreys, the chair of the energy committee, made an interesting point at the design committee meeting yesterday. What if we paid for this through a 30 year bond instead of a 20 year bond? The hit on the tax rate would be much less, but the total project cost would grow. He said that Town finance director John O’Connor agreed that this was possible. It seems to me that if these buildings are being designed to last — a 50+ year design life — then increasing the bond from 20 to 30 years makes sense, especially if it allows us to incorporate energy saving systems and technologies into the plan, which have a higher up-front cost but will save money in annual operating expenses.
I heard Alex Wilson a while back talk about how in certain European countries it is possible to get a 100 year mortgage on a building. The implication is that someone building a building can afford to incorporate all sorts of expensive energy efficiency measures into such a building because the money saved in reduced heating/cooling/electricity bills will much more than cover the added monthly mortgage payment in such a situation. I love this kind of thinking — planning for the long haul, building things to perform well, and to last.
Thank you
That was helpful, though I can’t help blanching over the idea of nearly 3 million in “ancillary expenses”.