The Brattleboro Selectboard snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at Tuesday’s long, final regular meeting of the year. With a vote of 3-2, the board threw away their carefully-crafted and quite palatable FY16 budget that featured no cuts to services and no significant tax increase.
Instead, the split decision was to endorse going forward with all three Police and Fire facilites immediately, and to ask for a new budget that would include payments to do the full scope of work, potentially adding a significant amount to property taxes. This sends the board back into budget meetings, and the spectre of service cuts and tax increases is now again on the horizon.
In other news, a list of capital improvements that were to be added back in to the budget had to be sidelined, Brattleboro pays a somewhat arbitrary rate for solid waste removal, the board endorsed the use of the higher-priced bag system for PAYT, and a new union is recognized for town employees.
Sorry for the delay. I had this almost finished last night and the power went out.
Preliminaries
Chair David Gartenstein was eager to get to the long list of business. So eager, he wished people happy holidays and skipped right over Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland’s remarks, if he had any, and went right on to Selectboard comments and committee reports, which amounted to a short suggestion by John Allen to shop locally.
During Public Participation, Tim Johnson told the board that Project Feed the Thousands was still behind in their goals, and going slower than expected. Only $40,000 of the $100,000 cash goal has been raised, and 147,000 meals out of a goal of 200,000 has been collected. There will be a Fill the Bus event at Hannaford all day Friday, he said, and invited all to help if they can.
First Class Liquor License – Brattleboro Country Club
The Brattleboro Country Club has new owners, and as such they must re-apply for a liquor license, which they did at Tuesday’s meeting.
The board approved a First Class liquor license, an outside consumption permit, and an entertainment license for John Judge Jr. and Melanie Bouese as owners of the Club.
Judge said they would be making improvement to the golf course and the Club House over the coming months.
Energy Committee Life-Cycle Costs Proposal
After a presentation by the Brattleboro Energy Committee at the last meeting, the Brattleboro Selectboard began discussing a motion to act on a recommendation of the group. Specifically, it was a suggestion to incorporate the full life-cycle cost analysis into all town capital projects.
The analysis would show the total impact on the tax rate on a yearly basis, and would include not only the cost of the item but also any bond payments, operating expenses, or maintenance costs.
David Schoales had made a quick motion to adopt the committee’s recommendation, but the board chose to wait until the wording could be checked over.
After discussing the proposal with town department heads, the feeling was that the process would be a useful one, but that there were questions about how to do the math on certain items, such as vehicles or partial work on projects.
David Schoales wanted to press ahead, at least using the calculations with the Police and Fire facilities. “It’s either a good idea or not.”
John Allen felt it was adding complexity and paperwork to an already fragile project. Donna Macomber was convinced by project manager Steve Horton’s assurance that they are already looking at ways to reduce costs over the long term.
In the end, the board voted to continue to move toward implementing life cycle cost analysis, taking a four month period to work out details for all the sorts of capital items that may come their way in the future.
Monthly Finance Report with John O’Connor
Finance Director John O’Connor gave the board an update on the latest budget numbers, through November 2014.
With 41.7% of the year complete, the General Fund stood at 42.3% of their annual budget.
Utilities Fund expenses stand at 47% and Parking Fund expenses at 36.8% of their annual budgets. Utilities is up due to bond interest payments and an unbudgeted outflow pipe repair.
Police & Fire Facilities have spent $16,362 to date this fiscal year.
Just over $4 million has been loaned out by the town, and just over $400,000 remains to be loaned.
There are 43 active grants and 10 in the pipeline.
Kate O’Connor noted that smart card revenue had gone up.
John O’Connor informed John Allen that about $350,000 remained available in the unassigned fund balance.
Staffing Level Review – Brooks Memorial Library
For a limited time, the Brattleboro Selectboard has chosen to take a look at the staffing of a department whenever a vacancy occurs. Children’s Librarian Sandra King is retiring, and so the Brooks Memorial Library had a chance to explain staffing to the board.
Library Director Jerry Carbone said the children’s room is staffed by two full-time and one part-time employees, and that he plans to promote Lindsay Bellville, assistant children’s librarian, to fill the open position. “She’s fully qualified [as a librarian], and has an engineering and management background, too.”
The Assistant Youth Librarian job description, then, will be the one advertised. The position is being changed slightly to respond to community needs, expanding the ages included to young adults, age 13-18.
David Gartenstein was happy to note that cutting library positions had been avoided this year. “During the last round of budgets we considered cutting positions,” he said, “and don’t hear that this year.” He also wished King the best and thanked her for years of service.
Police-Fire Facilities Project
The Police-Fire Facilities Committee has undertaken a brief study of possible properties and locations to house a re-located Police facility, and returned to the Brattleboro Selectboard Tuesday to share what they had learned.
The requirements for a police facility include parking for 35 cars, an 18,000 square foot building, and 2-3 acres of land.
The sites that have been evaluated, briefly, are as follows:
70 Landmark Hill – described as a 2 story wood-framed structure that is large enough, in good condition, has “great access,” and room to expand. Price, about a million to buy, or $4.2 million total after renovations.
999 Putney Road – is another wood-framed two-story structure. Also in good condition, it comes with ample parking. $1.5 million to buy, and about $5.8 million total estimate after rehab.
76 Technology Drive – is a pre-engineered metal building with ample parking. The cost would be about a million, perhaps, to buy and $4.4 million to fully outfit.
Other properties recently suggested by Brattleboro Bowl owners have not yet been evaluated.
Total costs include purchase price, renovations, additions, garages, equipment, architect fees, project management, and a contingency of 10%.
Buying one of these options would enable the committee to proceed with what is known as Plan F, an unfortunate name for keeping the Fire Station plans as is, but finding a new location for the Police facility.
David Schoales was eager to avoid additional voter input and instead move ahead. “I don’t think we need approval again,” he proclaimed. “It’s time to start negotiating and getting this done. We know it has to be done.”
David Gartenstein disagreed. He noted the “unprecedented” rejection of the budget last year. “My view is we need to have a long term analysis of our operating budget, our capital equipment and infrastructure needs, and to look at it all together over a five or ten year period before we can commit to this work.”
He said a new Town Manager starts in five weeks, and a long list of other town needs also must be considered. “There is a real need to rebalance all of our needs with the taxpayers ability to pay in the long term. “
Kate O’Connor though the board should take its time to do a good proposal that will be approved by voters, and felt that getting it on this year’s town meeting warning was too short a time frame to do it properly.
John Allen said it was appalling that they couldn’t make a decision on the Police Fire Facility, calling it both “bogus” and a “cop-out.” He said the town would always have financial problems and will always need things. “The majority of people in town didn’t vote against this. It wasn’t representative of what people want in town. They want a safe fire station and capable police station.” He admitted that he had voted against the project in the past.
Donna Macomber joined with Allen and agreed that it was time to move forward, saying that “I rely on Police and Fire in my work.” She said people in town were struggling, but she’d vote to do all three projects at once.
Schoales then shifted to wanting the views of the voters. “Our job isn’t to decide what the voters vote on. We present a plan to bring to voters that we support. We can’t know until they vote,” he said, contradicting his earlier statements.
Allen said he’d even support the 1% local option tax he previously was against. “Maybe we need to bring that up and open up that can of worms and see how it goes.”
Gartenstein cautioned that adding the project to their nearly completed budget would change things, likely adding 8-10 cents to the tax rate and triggering a rewrite of the budget.
Allen, Schoales, and Macomber didn’t seem to care, and wanted a purchase and sale agreement (with option to decline if voters say no) on two of the properties. John Allen made a motion, with assistance, to endorse Plan F, revise the FY16 budget to borrow for full construction costs, and empower staff to negotiate property agreements.
And so, with a vote of 3-2, Gartenstein and O’Connor against, the Brattleboro Selectboard voted to throw away their carefully prepared budget and start anew, asking taxpayers for the full cost of the three facilities once again.
FY16 Budget Discussion Continuation Stalls
At this point in the meeting, the Brattleboro Selectboard had previously planned to add additional items to the FY16 budget, such as a second police cruiser, additional funds for paving and sidewalks, pool repairs, and window replacement at Gibson Aiken Center.
But, that was not to be.
“We just had a vote to add the cost of Police Fire payments back into the budget,” said David Gartenstein, somewhat in shock from the previous vote, “so there are a number of open questions with respect to FY 16 budget.”
Kate O’Connor agreed. “We just added a major thing into the budget, so I don’t know what that’s done to property taxes. We’re not dealing with the same thing. We don’t know what we’ve added. I’m hesitant to add anything back in now.”
The board agreed to set a meeting for early morning on December 30 to discuss the latest revised budget.
Pay As You Throw
The Pay As You Throw Advisory Group gave an update to the Brattleboro Selectboard about their planning for the implementation of Pay As You Throw (PAYT). Solid Waste currently comprises about $940,000 of the town’s budget.
Moss Kahler said decisions had been made. The group has decided to sell bags at costs similar to surrounding towns of Hinsdale and Vernon. A roughly 15 gallon bag will cost $2 and a larger 33 gallon bag will be $3. The Town Finance Director estimates income of $385,000 from bag sales and expects the income to cover tipping fees and a substantial part of the contract with Triple T.
The less expensive sticker system was rejected, the board was told by Peter Gaskill of Triple T, because it would be easier for Triple T to collect colored bags. Kahler said people might sneak in 60 gallon bags if stickers were used, or might try to put one sticker on two bags.
The group is currently working on a legal review of necessary revisions to the Code of Ordinances required to bring PAYT into operation in Brattleboro. Most of the changes are minor updates, but enforcement of the new law is anticipated to be an issue.
Patrick Moreland, in a memo, suggest Moss Kahler be hired to supplement the enforcement and educational needs of the town. One vendor offered to do it at a cost of $17,000, but Kahler is being given an opportunity to provide an alternative proposal. Kahler also suggested to the board that the two month education help offered by vendors would be inadequate.
The committee suggests the town implement a Solid Waste Disposal Fund that would include all expenses associated with solid waste, including collection and tipping fees, bags and containers, public education and project management, removing these costs from the General Fund henceforth. This will make it easy to see the costs, they informed the board.
Basic bids of bags, thus far, have not been very competitive. Some vendors offer bags, plus distribution and inventory control systems at additional cost. The recommendation from Patrick Moreland is to hire outside vendors to handle distribution and inventory in addition to providing bags. The add-on cost could be between $15,00 and $25,000 a year. The information comes from replies to an RFP that the Selectboard seemed unaware of.
A company called Waste Zero was the low bidder of the PAYT bags, with or without distribution The cost of the bags ranges from $34,000 to just over $50,000, depending on how many we use the first year.
No sample bags were shown to anyone. No samples stickers were shown, either.
The committee is against free bags, and is divided on whether low income residents should receive discounts. There have been no decisions for sliding scale fees for bags, but a possible “compromise” is to sell bags at the Town Treasurer’s office and at the Senior Center at a discount for those who can qualify.
The basic objection to showing any mercy was that it would undermine the intent of the program – to make people pay for their waste.
Kahler noted that even with a 50% discount, though, the bags would more than cover the associated tipping costs. This prompted David Gartenstein to ask why, then, we would be paying more for the bags than necessary. “Why not charge $1 and $1.50, then?”
“To make the point that we are covering the costs of putting trash in the landfill,” said Kahler. He said bags needed to cover costs of tipping fees, and transportation.
Gartenstein asked how the bags were being priced and was told that our total trash tonnage was divided by the average weight of a bag, “then you think of other costs you’d like to include, like management or enterprise funds.” Brattleboro bags will cover costs of tipping, transportation, recycling collection, bags, bag distribution, program management, education, and an enterprise fund contribution.
Donna Macomber pointed out that Brattleboro has more renters than the other surrounding towns, and wondered if landlords could be made to supply a reasonable number of bags to tenants. “I’d like to move toward charging the least amount possible to be in line with the law, and explore landlords and homeowners paying for a reasonable number of bags for apartments.”
John Allen felt service organizations would jump in to supply bags to residents. Kahler felt charitable giving was already stretched thin.
Chelsea Nunez of the Brattleboro Housing Authority cautioned that they need to make it easier to compost, or residents of their 300 units might find dumpsters to be a better option.
Kahler reminded her that any tight-lidded, marked container could be used for compost, and special bins were not required.
The board quickly endorsed the committee’s work, in favor of using the higher cost bags instead of stickers, in favor of charging $2 and $3 per bag, and agreeing that there would be no sliding scales or free bags given out.
Windham Solid Waste Management District Budget Discussion
The Windham Solid Waste Management District (WSWMD) charges the town an annual assessment to participate in the waste management district and to receive services such as recycling pickup, a solid waste transfer station, hazardous household waste collection, and so on.
In FY15 the cost was $157,000. Brattleboro, however, collects about 8% of that as payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) because the facility is on Old Ferry Road.
David Gartenstein wanted to know why Brattleboro was charged the way it was, and what we got for our money.
WSWMD representatives listed the services above, and said that they provide intangible services such as answering questions. They will also be helping us with the transition to Act 148 and PAYT. In the end, though, they told the board that the amount we are charged cannot be accounted for dollar for dollar.
Much of the discussion centered on questions of single or dual stream systems. WSWMD uses dual stream, but has been investigating single stream. In the end, they said the cost savings wasn’t large enough to make an easy decision, and dual stream will remain for the time being. Single stream was described as “unscrambling an egg” and while easier to collect is more intensive to process.
The representatives said that they wanted to use the coming year to gather more information, since the change to Act 148 is a big one, and hoped to have better information by this time next year.
As for payments, Brattleboro is charged by population. This has prompted Patrick Moreland to question the approach, and WSWMD is now investigating charging based on services used. A Vernon resident agreed, saying that some towns have populations that vary widely depending on season.
Kate O’Connor asked if Brattleboro was required to remain in the district. The answer is no, but leaving would cause turmoil and would take time and money.
The reason for this question became more clear when it was revealed that Triple T had made an offer to save Brattleboro money by switching recycling pickup to their company. They offered to add filmy plastics to the list of items for recycling as part of the deal.
Gartenstein felt he still hadn’t heard what he was asking about, and requested that WSWMD have a better answer by early January, when the board makes decisions about final budget requests. He rephrased it so they might better understand his query: “If Triple T takes our recycling, what impact would it have on the district, and how much we pay for trash collection as a whole?”
He also said a long-term strategy for the town was needed.
Collective Bargaining Agreement
The Brattleboro Selectboard approved a two-year collective bargaining agreement with the new union representing administrative employees in town.
David Gartenstein said that the agreement codifies the current working relationship, with minor changes. Employees will now get regular raises, but will no longer receive payments to a health savings account, for example.
The agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 98, is retroactive to July 1 of this year.
Strolling of the Heifers Parade Permit
The Strolling of the Heifers received a street blocking permit and two parade permits for their annual multi-day events, next scheduled for June of 2015. Along with the permits came another requirement – that the Stroll pay a bill for all town services used for the event.
The Stroll will close Main Street between Elliot and High on Friday June 5th from 5-9 for Gallery Walk evening, then again on Saturday from 8am to 11:45 am for the parade from Flat Street to the Retreat.
The Heifer Ride on Sunday June 7, from 8am to 4 pm also received a permit.
Once again our "esteemed"
Once again our “esteemed” SelectBoard has shown, without any doubt, that they don’t give a S*** about the people they represent. Back to square one with the obscenely expensive police/fire project -despite the fact that the voters said “No thanks” quite clearly. And, then a big middle finger salute to those in town who live on fixed incomes and cannot afford to buy the most expensive trash bags in the world. What is wrong with this group of people? And to have the PAYT decisions being made by the very person(s) who will financially benefit from the program has a distinct odor to it.
How long before we get to elect new SB members?
Yer gonna get a police/fire facility whether you like it or not
Doesn’t matter how many times voters say “no.” It’s the parking garage all over again, in spades.
And PAYT! How long have they been foaming at the mouth for PAYT?
Could Some Clarify Please
$1.5 million to buy and $5.8 million to renovate? Am I reading this correctly or is the $5.8 million figure the entire cost including the $1.5 million to buy.
Total combined estimate
Includes the purchase. $5.8 would be purchase, fix, and outfit.
They were uncertain of exact purchase prices, but were guessing based on listings with agents and lister’s opinions. Actual prices could be lower or higher depending on the deal being struck.
Good thing the sellers don’t know how much the buyers want to get going!
The "esteemed" SB BS
Clearly, everyone has as much money as the SB members do, so what’s the prob?
And this:
“Kate O’Connor agreed. “We just added a major thing into the budget, so I don’t know what that’s done to property taxes. We’re not dealing with the same thing. We don’t know what we’ve added. I’m hesitant to add anything back in now.”
That’s just perfect, it’s all just perfect.
Police-Fire facility
Does anybody know what “other properties recently suggested by Brattleboro Bowl owners” are?
Not sure
They didn’t say specifically at the meeting. Maybe someone else knows more by now…??
La La Land
Having lived in Town for over six decades, within the last two years there have been ten families I’m aware of, most of whom have resided in Brattleboro for two and three generations, who understood the financial handwriting on the wall and have relocated south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Myself included.
It’s been a fun ten years contributing to iBrattleboro.
One final suggestion. The current Selectboard should appoint a select committee of business people in Town who have the knowledge and experience of how to formulate a Chapter 9, Title 11, Reorganization Plan under the Federal Bankruptcy Laws. Similar to what happened in Stockton, California, within the next five years Brattleboro will be in Rutland in Federal Bankruptcy Court requesting a motion for protection from the Town’s vendors and creditors.
Trust me on this one.
RLElkins
Life imitates TV
A noteworthy coincidence, with Colbert’s departure aligning with our own homegrown right-leaning comedy giant biding adieu.
I may not have always agreed with what you wrote, but I’m grateful for the rigor your brought to the craft, and appreciative of the spirit that joined your genuine horse sense with generous heaps of your special horse slop.
Best of luck, RL
disingenuous
It is disingenuous to call the FY16 budget as presented “level funded”.
A truly “level-funded” budget would be a budget that is reduced by the amount that the residents of Brattleboro will now be paying for garbage bags.
By failing to reduce the tax rate by a proportional amount, the town is not shifting costs from taxes into the PAYT system, but is instead double-dipping by taxing us the same amount *AND* adding PAYT costs on top of it.
Therefore the FY16 budget as presented is actually a tax-increase.
If I am interpreting the above correctly and PAYT will raise ~$400,000 and our current town annual budget is around $16,000,000, that roughly equates to a 2.5 cent tax increase. Probably closer to 3 cents as it sounds like PAYT comes with additional costs of its own.
So, we have an anticipated 2 cent increase in the statewide education tax rate, plus 3 cents for this PAYT increase, and now adding 8-10 cents for the police/fire project since the town needs to spend at least a million dollars on a fancy architect rather than more modest avenues of building design.
So we are looking at a 13-15 cent tax increase for FY16? On top of last year’s rather large tax increase.
Are you ready to breach the psychological threshold of a 3% property tax rate, Brattleboro?
Does anyone in charge really believe that this is sustainable?
Does anyone in charge realize what the property tax rate is doing and will do to real estate values?
la-la land
I should add that it is a striking example of cognitive dissonance to hear that selectboard members are still making desperate rationalizations as to why the voters of the town rejected the FY15 budget when given the opportunity, which clearly was anything but a repudiation of a given fiscal issue.
To hear the same selectboard members wanting to revisit the 1% local option tax yet again… At some point its not innocent ignorance, its intentionally plugging one’s hears and humming. One has to wonder why the persistence in incentivizing us all to shop in West Chesterfield, Hinsdale and Keene even more than we already do.
Personally I’d like to see the selectboard (and the school district, which deserves far more scrutiny than it is receiving) pick a rate of lets say 2.75%, which is relatively high but lets assume a reasonable number and then work backwards with the goal of “Ok, this is our revenue, now what can we afford?”
Budget = Expenditures AND Revenues
I could be wrong about this, though I hope I am not, but when the selectboard talks about a “level-funded budget” I believe they’re talking about expenditures, not taxes. The complete budget is both expenditures and the balancing revenues. While property tax is the main revenue source, it’s also the one the board figures out last based on all the other expected income.
As far as I know, Pay As You Throw (PAYT) won’t change expenses very much, but by design it will generate more revenue. If town expenditures are the same but town revenues go up by X because of PAYT, then the amount the town needs to raise with taxes should of course go down by X.
For example:
Glenn, thanks for the
Glenn, thanks for the explanation, its definitely very different than what I was coming away with from my readings here but certainly makes sense and I do hope you are correct.
Unfortunately it doesn’t address the statewide education tax increase and the apparently non-nonchalantly proposed 8-9 cent increase for the police/fire project, but it at least helps a bit.
Can anyone in a position to state with absolute certainty weigh in on whether the property tax rate will be reduced by a roughly proportional amount that will be raised by PAYT bag sales?
That seems like an important point to clarify.
More Numbers...
I’m not in a position to say anything authoritative – I can’t even vote at (Representative) Town Meeting (but that’s a different soapbox). However, as someone who thinks doing the Police Fire Project is a difficult but necessary decision (!), I feel compelled to point out that even if the town took out a $9M bond as proposed last year, the increase in taxes is nowhere near what some people seem to think. (The current estimates, with a new police station instead of a municipal building renovation, would be even less.)
Using the proposed FY15 budget numbers, the first year’s payment on a $9M bond would be less than $300,000 ($261K). Given Chris’s numbers, below, of FY16 expenditures of $15.4M (with PAYT income apparently balancing the tipping fees and both being removed from the town budget) and assuming the same income from other sources as FY15 of $2.4M, that would leave (15.4+0.3-2.4=) $13.3M to be raised by property taxes, which is actually $200,000 less than this year. That should mean a 1.7 cent drop from the current ($1.16) municipal tax rate. The property tax cost of taking out a $9M bond for the rest of the Police Fire Project is about 2.2 cents, not 8-9 cents. (I think the following year, FY17, the bond cost would go up to 5 cents, but then it would go down from there. Meanwhile, we’re already paying on the $5M bond, but that cost will go down every year.)
None of which, as eschmitt points out, addresses the education portion ($1.65) of our property taxes – which really is the elephant in the room, since that’s about 60% of the property tax bill. Back to the Police Fire Project being a difficult decision; to me, it’s hard to understand arguing so much over 2-5 cents of property tax when I’m paying 165 cents for something else that I REALLY don’t understand (meaning the education property tax, not that I don’t support education spending).
Where are the TM Reps?
Here’s how I wrote up the budget before they added the Police and Fire facilities back in.
“He [Gartenstein] said that the current draft shows a number of just about $15.4 million for a level-service, level-funded budget. “A budget that moves forward the status quo and leaves services essentially the same.”
It was accomplished by the move to Pay As You Throw, with the cost of trash being removed from the municipal budget and taxes and shifted to the pocketbooks of people in town who throw things out.
Otherwise, line items have been tweaked a bit here and there, but everything remains “pretty much stable” except for rising wages due to labor agreements, “and that takes up the money we’ll be bringing in from Pay As You Throw.”
…
Then, a few weeks later (the above meeting), Macomber, Schoales, and Allen voted to add the Police Fire project back in on top of all this. And Allen suggesting trying for the 1% local option sales tax, too, perhaps. He was against all of these things before, but now he isn’t, and we’re all bad for not suddenly agreeing with him.
This probably would not have happened if Town Meeting Representatives, even one from each district, attended meetings on a regular basis, kept fellow reps informed, and kept in touch with those they represent. I bet three informed Town Meeting Reps at the last mtg could have generated enough reasonable doubt that the board would;d not have voted for all three facilities to be done at once for just about the same amount that was rejected before, in the same way.
Where is the representation?
….
When previous SB voted to significantly alter people’s water and sewer bills, they came up with a phased in plan to slowly increase user costs over a period of years, to take away some of the sting of a sudden increase. PAYT could be done the same way, but i won’t be.
Chris: You have managed to
Chris: You have managed to sum up what is troubling about reading these town minutes “Where is the representation?”
It seems like these decisions are being made in a whimsical and one must assume off-the-cuff manner. And as you and others have pointed out, with absolutely no regard to or even worse, perhaps a purposeful misinterpretation of the last townwide vote.
It’s pretty freakin frightening that personal budgets are being affected with such poorly thought out decisions made in haste at a meeting. So now we move from a level funded budget with personal household increases due to Pay as You Throw to a huge tax increase because somebody has changed their mind and from what you say the attitude is we all should just go along. Seems like some on the SB have champagne tastes in a town where most of us are trying to live on beer budgets. Yeah, where’s the representation? I agree.
A new way
The selectboard just needs to come up with a new charter that does away with town meeting reps. I don’t mean one in which Brattlborians get to vote on their taxes like other Vermonters, I mean a completely new charter that establishes a Supreme Selectboard that appoints itself and acts as a council of representative voters in all matters. They would be responsible for casting all votes, including those for town and statewide offices, on behalf of the subjects of Brattleboro.
It would completely eliminate the hassle of dealing with voters and their stupid needs and wants.
Not working...
I’m trying very hard to see the value of Representative Town Meeting.
It seems like a place you get approval for projects that the general population wouldn’t otherwise support.
ur right, not working
The majority of reps don’t represent their districts but vote their own wishes.
Anyone who thinks they are truly being represented are delusional. When the reps approve a budget and the voters overturn that vote by a large margin (3-1)? something is not working right and it sure as heck isn’t the voters.
And yes, we do need a change. Unfortunatly its this same group who would need to vote on change (I think)
Ballot question
Signatures can be gathered for a ballot question to all voters – to see if Brattleboro should return to the Town Meeting system of governing (or the mayoral system, or whatever the alternative would be).
Pretty simple, actually.
Try being a rep yourself
Being a town rep is open to all of you. There is at least a possibility that you would look at the representative town meeting differently if you became part of it.
Every year there is a shortage of candidates for town meeting. Will term limits help this?
The issues of town finance, taxation, development and infrastructure will be the same if the town goes to a different system of governance. I would like to hear specifics on how a different structure would better address the difficult issues we face.
Chris – I think – did a good job researching the history of representative town meeting for this site. I have been a rep for a number of years and I have had precious few calls from folks who want me to vote a certain way. I have signed all citizen initiated petitions that have been presented me because I believe that is a fundamental right. I have seen town meeting decisions overturned on more than one occasion by citizen petition. I have gotten involved in issues with the select board because constituents called me with concerns. A lot goes on that you may not be aware of.
I completely agree with the view that the costs of PAYT must be reflected in tax savings. That is the whole point of putting that cost on to the users of the trash/recycling system. If it simply becomes added ‘taxation’ then that is technically called a ‘rip off’. PAYT, however, is now state law and the only way forward with our solid waste. A system that pays us to create less waste and to re-use and recycle the waste we do create is essential.
Regardless of the form of town government we will need creative solutions. This coming March will see another representative town meeting. Get your signatures to the town office by January 26 and you can be on the ballot.
Andy
Yeah, but...
I’ve been a rep. It was interesting and useful, but I didn’t ultimately like it. And I love this kind of stuff.
Issues come up that I had no time to consult with any constituents on. I say constituents, but I had no idea who I was representing, either – the people that voted for me? My district as a whole? But my district isn’t unanimous in thought. In the end it came down to my own opinion at the moment, sometimes swayed by public peer pressure. How is that representing anyone?
Our district reps never met with people who lived in it.
I think it would be best if everyone interested in participating simply went to meetings, representing themselves alone. I think we’d get less divisive decisions, and would eliminate the back and forth voting and revoting between reps and voters at large.
…
I also think David Gartenstein’s idea of looking at all the major expenses as a whole is a good, essential step we need to take, but I’m not sure who will accomplish that task. One would think the Selectboard would take it on, but 3 out of 5 said no. Maybe the Futures Committee?
on the other hand...
I have never felt like my ‘reps’ in Washington or Montpelier ever took the time to consult with me. I have written to DC on occasion and have even gotten form letters back. It’s perhaps easier in Vermont where I periodically actually talk with my state senators and house reps. This is a natural pitfall of representative democracy. Does the representative try to find out exactly what the constituents feels and vote that way or combine feedback from the community with their own perceptions of what is the best way forward.
Admitedly, people do not run for town meeting rep on a specific platform (i.e.. LEVEL FUND THE BUDGET or DEFUND SOCIAL SERVICES or PRIVATIZE THE SCHOOLS. There is a general consensus at town meeting of trying to do what is best for the town when given tough choices. The suggestion has been made to do all votes on a roll call basis so that the public can more easily see who they agree and disagree with… This would certainly make a long process much longer while building in more accountability.
If you want to see what it is like when ‘ everyone interested in participating’ simply goes to a meeting attend the annual BUHS district budget meeting in February where a small handful of folks from five towns spend a huge wad of money with hardly any leeway or discretion. At least at rep town meeting we have 145 folks who follow the issues, are willing to listen to people who contact them and set aside several evenings and town meeting day to delve into the issues. As I said before it is fairly easy to become a rep. Wouldn’t it be great to see 30 people running for 14 seats in a district and position papers posted on iBrattleboro, the Commons and the Reformer.
Andy
Yabut
Andy, it sounds like you’re an excellent rep, one who follows issues and takes time to discuss the issues with your constituents.
The difference between the federal government and a Vermont town government is vast. One is a democratic republic. The other is, with a couple of unfortunate exceptions, a modified direct democracy. Voters in towns are supposed to have a direct say in government finances, and they elect representatives to execute their budgetary decisions. And I would also say that if anyone is trying to justify representative town meeting by comparing it to Congress, I would counter that it is the perfect comparison and reason not to continue with it.
The “representatives” at representative town meeting are really just a big selectboard – a big selectboard with limited power because the little selectboard that does executes their decisions doesn’t answer to them. (Ostensibly) the little selectboard answers to the voters, who have no real opportunity to exercise their vote on fiscal matters except through an unnecessarily tedious process of waiting for proposals, then decisions, then petitioning a vote, then weighing in.
And there’s a big difference between a small handful of elected officials making decisions at Town Meeting and a small handful of voters making decisions. First, there is the matter of free choice. Any voter in the free towns of Vermont, for any reason or issue, can wake up on the first Tuesday of March, go to their Vermont Town Meeting, sound off, make a motion, offer budget cuts or increases for debate, and cast a vote. Likewise, they’re free to stay at work or home and let others “represent” them. You may say anyone can be a representative, but it’s an elected position. And some may feel like Chris, that they want to speak and act on their own behalf, not a precinct or district of other voters.
But I seem to remember, and I admit I haven’t gone back to look, that in your excellent history of representative town meeting, one of the reasons for going to representative town meeting was because there were too many people participating in Town Meeting and there wasn’t enough space! While I can’t imagine the mentality of those who wanted to limit democratic participation in Brattleboro (well, maybe I can speculate), there is now plenty of room at Brattleburger Onion High School. So there’s no reason not to pop the cork and let all those voters loose!
Selectboard Exceeded Its Authority
As usual the nay-sayers are jumping right into this fray first.
There was no 2014 voter mandate on the Police-Fire facilities project; only on the Town budget. Claims that the budget referenda were voter mandates on the Police-Fire project are, and were, specious at best.
However, the selectboard, in effect, was listening to those specious claims, and as a result decided to exceed their mandate when they deleted from the revised budget for 2014-15 the interest on the second bond for the project, therefore putting the project on hold — without actually saying they were doing that or that it was their intention to do so. In other words, they ‘finessed’ the stop of the project, which incidentally is costing taxpayers even more money because the construction project overall was already under way.
Now the symphony will start to gradually build to a crescendo at the point of Representative Town Meeting in March, 2015, when our elected representatives will have a chance to tell the Selectboard, should they so choose, that legally they exceeded their mandate. After all, the Police-Fire project was approved by a 3-1 vote ratio at the same meeting last year.
The only way to legally trump a decision of the voters’ elected representatives in Representative Town Meeting is to take the question to the voters themselves. The referenda on the budget last year did not do that … only offered a yes-no vote on the total budget.
Exactly. What should be done
Exactly. What should be done is for the Police-Fire Station issue to be put directly before the voters. And be put before the voters with the figures calculated not just for what the Police=Fire Station costs would be but also a look at the overall budget costs complete with projections of unavoidable additional costs in the next 5 or so years. It should be broken down so that home owners can see exactly what their tax bill will be with and without the project. Shouldn’t be hard to make a list that indicates 1. Home Assessed Value 2. Projected tax bill in exact dollar amount ()not percentages or amounts per $100) with the project and without for 2015, 2016, 2017 etc. If your home is assessed at $200,000 you will pay $xxxx in 2015 if there is no fire station project and $xxxx in 2015 if there is a fire station project. AND be sure and include the school budget, in fact what would be useful for taxpayers is to see the school budget included as a separate item so they can see exactly what they are paying based on assessed home value per year for that cost. I believe many will be surprised to see how much of their actual tax bill is for the school costs.
Home assessed value: $xxx,xxx
Town taxes with fire station project: $x,xxx
School tax portion: $x,xxx
Total: $x,xxx
Home assessed value: $xxx,xxx
Town taxes without fire station project: $x,xxx
School tax portion: $x,xxx
Total $x,xxx
I think people need to see actual money costs not in percentages per $100 of value. I feel that the way these costs have been presented in the past is murky and not that clear. Give taxpayers exact costs (or approximations) per year in taxes.You can break down the assessed values by $100,000, $150,000, $200,000 etc. That will give enough of an indication to most of us.
With All Due Respect
I would like to add that I think claims that the vote wasn’t about taking on the Police-Fire station project but about the actual entire budget are, to coin a phrase, specious. The town budget was voted down, the only item not fixed and unavoidable in the town budget was the Police-Fire Station project. I think the taxpayers were quite aware of that when they voted. I’ve heard candidates for both state and local positions repeatedly say that the issue voters seemed to be bringing up most often was taxes. It’s unfortunate that the wording of that last vote didn’t pinpoint what was being voted on more clearly. I personally was surprised to suddenly see all these statements that people weren’t voting on taking on such a big project right now. Certainly was what I thought I was voting about since I’d been told everything else in the budget was pretty much fixed and there weren’t any places where big reductions were possible.
But I do feel that the figures have to be presented more clearly. This is what it is going to cost with, this is without. Even if you want to present it in cost per $100 value. But I really do think breaking it down by actual assessed value would give a clearer picture of what the true cost will be per year overall to taxpayers. Who knows, perhaps it will seem more affordable to people when stated more clearly.
Table for Last Year's Discussion
I completely agree that figures should be presented more clearly. The information is out there, but I believe the town only pushes it to the Town Meeting Representatives – since they’re the ones who vote on it. I think something like the following would be (and would have been) very useful in budget discussions. (This is for the current Fiscal Year, FY15, so it’s been overcome by events now. If the table format is useful, perhaps the town could give something like this to the TM reps as a handout.)
Fiscal Year (FY15) Tax Rates and Values – spacing would have been easier with an HTML table!
Home Value ……………………………………. $50,000 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $500,000
Education Tax …………………. 1.6501 ……. $825 …. $1,650 …. $3,300 …. $4,950 …. $8,251
Municipal Tax …………………. 1.1634 ……. $582 …. $1,163 …. $2,327 …. $3,490 …. $5,817
$9M Bond (Increase) ………. 0.0225 ……… $11 ………. $23 ……… $45 ………. $68 …….. $113
Municipal Tax with Bond …. 1.1859 ……. $593 …. $1,186 …. $2,372 …. $3,558 …. $5,930
Calculation of $9,000,000 bond cost: bond payment ($261,000) divided by amount otherwise to be raised by taxes ($13,473,675) = required tax rate increase (0.01937, or 1.937%), multiplied by actual tax rate (1.1634) = 0.0225.
great conversation
I agree that information is key when making democratic decisions. Freedom of the press is part of the process and these figures have appeared in the Reformer and the Commons. Town reps have been given this information – the actual dollar amounts that will result from various decisions. These informational sheets have been available to anyone who attends the public informational sessions prior to these votes. They have probably been available at the town hall, as well.
Specific dollar amounts, of course, mean very different things to different people. I admit that I voted in favor of the original police/fire project because after attending numerous info sessions with police/fire/town officials I weighed the need for the facilities against a roughly $5 per week tax increase for someone in a $180K house. Some told me that that increase was too great. Others said that that increase was workable in their lives.
This gets back to the discussion of whether or not a representational form of town meeting is working for us. I never said that our little town meeting is the same as the US Congress. What I said was that all ‘representatives’ – everywhere – have to balance their own view of reality with what they have come to believe are the needs and opinions of their constituents. When a town meeting rep attends informational meetings and then gets a phone call saying ‘enough is enough’ – there is a need to make a judgement, based upon a variety of competing interests. I do not believe that town meeting reps vote ‘for what they want’ regardless. If reps could vote for what they ‘want’ we would all have lower taxes, more efficiency, longer lasting infrastructure and smoother roads in the spring! Reps are forced to choose among competing needs. A town meeting of the whole population will face the same dilemmas.
Taxes are not the only expenses we all face in this town. And property taxes are not the only potential source of income for the town. It falls to all of us to look for ways improve our lives while expending fewer dollars – and somehow take care of our shared responsibilities for public safety, infrastructure and other community needs. It ain’t easy and I don’t have an easy answer.
Andy
Again, With All Due Respect
First of all, I have lived here quite some time and never seen the tax figures broken down in this way in the Reformer or anywhere else. And I read everything. I have attended Town Rep meetings and never been given information presented in this way. Also here is where it really gets confusing. According to the figures given by the prior poster the cost for a taxpayer with $180,000 house is about $30 per year. According to you it would have been roughly $5 per week or a total of about another $240 per year. Do you see why this is confusing to everyone. There needs to be information that is clear and accurate presented to ALL taxpayers not just town reps in a very clear and understanding method that does not require a lot of math calculation.
The figures I showed above -
The figures I showed above – again, which were for the last round of budget discussions, not the upcoming FY16 ones – apply only to how the town FY15 taxes might have changed if the selectboard had taken out the $9M bond to continue the Police Fire Project without cutting anything or getting extra funding from anywhere. (I believe the $5/week figure was what people were talking about the year before, as an estimated payment for the entire $14M project – which vote passed and resulted in the town taking out the first $5M bond.) I pulled the tax amount and rates from the town webpage and got the bond payment figure, $261K, from the TM Rep info someone sent me, so I’m pretty confident that those numbers are correct for that very specific question: how much would taking out the $9M bond have cost in FY15?
That said, on the one hand, the budget is incredibly complicated, and trying to display one part of it cleary risks oversimplifying the whole issue. (For example, while the tax impact of the first year’s payment on a $9M bond for a $180K house would have been $40, the second year’s share of the payment might have been $80-120, and again that’s only the $9M bond, not the whole $14M project.) On the other hand, I believe it is worth making the impact of specific changes as clear as possible during debate – raise expenses by X, taxes have to go up by Y; cut A from the budget, and taxes can go down by B. If you’ve got the data and accept that you’re showing only one part of a complicated whole, it’s not hard to figure out and it really helps put things in concrete terms so people can argue apples to apples. I’ve thought several times it would be nice to have someone with a spreadsheet projecting the numbers onto a screen at Representative Town Meeting as things change.
However, I don’t believe Brattleboro NEEDS to put that information out to all taxpayers, because as we’re currently structured why should they? With the Representative Town Meeting system, it is the TM Reps who need to have and understand the information. That’s the town’s target audience, so the town gives the TM Reps this kind of information in detail. The town is quite happy to make it available for anyone else who asks, but the public is not their focus. To me, this is the great failing of the Representative Town Meeting system. With a normal Town Meeting any voter is free to attend, be heard, and make motions (I completely agree with Maus’ “Yabut” sentiments, above). Every other Vermont town has to push information to everyone and be ready to explain issues simply and clearly because there’s no assumption (right or wrong) that the people at the meeting will already completely understand the issue. I personally abhor RTM, but it’s the system we have… which is pretty much why I post things here where Reps might read them.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the clarification. I’m not so convinced that even with the Town Rep meeting set-up that taxpayers don’t have a right to direct clear information as to what expenditures are going to be. Otherwise how could we know whether to support a town rep candidate if they support something we would disagree with. Sounds like a perfect set up for uninformed voters. I think there are also huge problems with the way the voting for the school budget is set up. It seems like as a voter and taxpayer the attitude is that the town isn’t required and maybe isn’t interested in giving out information yet we’re supposed to foot the bill. And the response here has often been, “heh, don’t like it, run for town rep” which is a response I find at best defensive on the part of the responder. At any rate, thanks for clarifying the discrepancy
Information Flow
Voters absolutely have a right to information, and (in my experience) the town staff is literally happy to provide it. I’m reasonably sure the school board is the same. The problem is that by the nature of the systems we’ve adopted, information is only PUSHED to a limited audience (i.e. the TM Reps), while as an “ordinary” resident / voter / taxpayer, you have to reach out and PULL the information. While it seems like a subtle distinction, and it kind of is, it makes a difference.
If I may try to put myself in different people’s shoes…
I really believe everyone is working towards what they think is best. The problem is how best to share information among (both passingly and very) interested parties so that everyone has a common understanding of the problem and proposed solution. If a majority doesn’t want to pay X in taxes, that’s fine – there’s a vote and an end to it. But if some people are talking about paying X in taxes, and other people are talking about spending Y on a project, and other people are worried about A in education spending, and other people are looking at X+B in total taxes… well, it’s hard to figure out what anyone wants.
In a nutshell
***However, I don’t believe Brattleboro NEEDS to put that information out to all taxpayers, because as we’re currently structured why should they? With the Representative Town Meeting system, it is the TM Reps who need to have and understand the information.***
I’m afraid that has become the general attitude of the town – who needs to explain anything to the little people?
But surely the intention of “representative” town meeting was not to turn a minority of the town’s residents into a secret society of budget scholars. Just as our republic was intended to rely on an informed electorate to guide their elected representatives, I’m sure the idea was for representatives to be guided by the informed concerns and opinions of their neighbors. There should be no inside information just for town meeting representatives.
Yes, confusing is the name of the game
Everytime I have attended an informational meeting about a budget or big expenditure issue in town there have been numerous handouts explaining how various scenarios will translate into tax rates, and dollar amounts for different home values. I have never been to a meeting that this information was not presented and explained. I feel the town does a good job in laying out the figures. I do recommend bringing a calculator to these meetings because if something is amended the numbers all change.
The Reformer and Commons – when covering these issues – do not print the whole mass of figures but certainly include highlights for the impact on homeowners of a few typical home values. It’s complicated, but so is shopping for a phone plan, a car loan, filing taxes and all the rest.
I have never heard anyone say: ” “heh, don’t like it, run for town rep”. I do think more people getting involved would be better for all of us. And if a different system is going to be tried (i.e. disband RTM), that will also have to be initiated using the current system.
Respectfully,
Andy
I have never heard anyone
I have never heard anyone say: ” “heh, don’t like it, run for town rep”.
Really, I guess you don’t read ibrattleboro posts all that much then. Including your own. Just on this comments section you wrote: As I said before it is fairly easy to become a rep. Wouldn’t it be great to see 30 people running for 14 seats in a district and position papers posted on iBrattleboro, the Commons and the Reformer.
Now I admit I’m taking a bit of poetic license, you really didn’t say” heh, don’t like it, run for town rep.” Various versions though of that sort of statement have been posted here a couple of times just in the last few months. The point is that it’s not simple for many to run for town offices and taxpayers shouldn’t have to be town reps in order to get information about what they’re being asked to pay for. In my humble opinion.
can poetic licenses be revoked?
Rosa,
You implied a whole different tone to my expressed hope that more people will take of advantage of the current system and run for town rep. That is ENTIRELY different than saying, if you don’t become part of the system stop complaining. I have have never felt that way nor expressed that stupid viewpoint. Daylong meetings are not for everyone, trying to figure out the town budget is not for everyone, and everyone has a right to an opinion here and anywhere else.
Please don’t ascribe to me a put up or shut up mentality when I have never expressed that in any way. That is not poetic license, that is distortion of another person’s viewpoint. I stand by my encouragement to folks who are eager and interested to get there petitions together by the last Monday in January.
Andy
Why Should We Have to Get Elected to Vote at Town Meeting?
I have to laugh, because I think Andy (who I KNOW is a great person and certainly seems to be an outstanding TM Rep) is displaying the typical tone deafness that TM Reps do on this issue.
TM Reps often encourage people to get petitions together and run for office to be a Town Meeting Representative. But why should we have to do that? Brattleboro is the only town in Vermont where residents have to live here long enough to run a campaign and get elected in order to be able to vote at (Representative) Town Meeting.
Because that is the current system
Glenn,
I am not being defensive or tone deaf. I am simply encouraging people to use the system we actually have. There was a big process a few years back leading to numerous charter changes in Brattleboro. This process continues as some people today want to change some aspects of the charter again. Town meeting is established by our charter and if we disband RTM – certainly a possibility and worthy of discussion – then that would have to go through the town governance as established by our charter. That change would involve the current RTM, public referendum and the state legislature.
Every year at RTM there are people who come and speak on issues they are knowledgeable about and passionate about. You do not have to be a rep to be part of the discussion/process. I know that that this is not what you wish we had. But we have it and it will only change when it is changed by our current system of governance. God knows I see problems with RTM but it is not tone deaf to simply acknowledge it exists. It is not going to just go away.
Check out the budget meeting for the BUHS District #6 in February. In the last five years between 50 and 90 voters from Brattleboro have turned up at this meeting (open to all voters) and approved a budget that represents about a third of all taxes collected in Brattleboro. I would certainly hope attendance would be greater at a Brattleboro town meeting.
Andy
I think Glen understands my
I think Glen understands my comment. I wasn’t really implying that Andy is taking a love it or leave it sort of attitude but that these sorts of comments even voiced as Andy did imply, to my mind, that as taxpayers the only way we can be informed is to be a town rep. It was a bit of a joke, the “poetic license” comment. But I do often hear in response to wanting information the refrain, “join us, be a town rep” but I feel that shouldn’t be necessary to get certain kinds of information. That’s all.
Town budget information is available
Today – Monday, 12/29/14 – the Reformer has an article on the Selectboard’s upcoming special budget meeting. The article includes very specific numbers on how the emerging budget for next year will affect taxes. The article includes dollar amounts rather than rates for a homeowner of a $200K assessed property:
“If Brattleboro does move ahead with the police-fire project as proposed the town will need to borrow $7.9 million, which would be on top of the $5 million which has already been borrowed for the project
If the $7.9 million bond is approved this year the owner of a $200,000 home would see a $117 increase in the second year without the 1 percent sales tax. That would be on top of any additional tax increase.
If the sales tax is enacted the tax increase would be just under $13…”
I know this is not the whole picture, but the picture is beginning to emerge.
Andy
Thanks. And that does give a
Thanks. And that does give a clearer picture. You know perhaps this sort of information would work in the favor of those who want this project.