Brattleboro’s municipal budget, and how to pay for it, was the focus of the first regular meeting of the selectboard in 2015. Very few decisions were made – that’s being saved for their next meeting – but issues were discussed in detail and a few Town Meeting Representatives even joined in the debate.
Property taxes appear to be going up, the 1% Local Option Sales tax may or may not be re-voted, a decision on the Futures Committee has been put off until the future, and the town has a long list of necessary improvements to do.
Board members held differing views on when the public and representatives should be consulted via votes or discussions, and which issues should be reconsidered.
Preliminaries
Chair David Gartenstein said things at the start of the meeting, but BCTV’s sound was off. Luckily there was a sign language interpreter, and I’m pretty sure that he praised Patrick Moreland for sticking with the position of Interim Town manager for 18 months, long beyond what anyone originally expected. With the sound returned, he also wished people a happy new year and said budget decisions would be finalized by January 29, 2015.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland thanked everyone for his time as Interim Town Manager, with “sincere appreciation to all for allowing me this opportunity to serve in this way.” He said he looked forward to working with the new Town Manager.
For Selectboard comments and committee reports, David Schoales said that surrounding towns’ roads were in poor shape compared to ours in Brattleboro. “Strikingly different,” he said, and “amazing how rough and un-clear they are compared to our roads.”
Gartenstein said that the Traffic Safety Committee was considering working with Local Motion to prioritize hotspots in town where work could be done to best improve pedestrian and bike safety, and so the town can have a coordinated plan to consult.
Public Participation
One member of the public asked that the Transportation Center be opened earlier and kept open later during cold months. The board agreed to look into the issue.
Dick Degray said that the Co-op had three streetlights out, and the town should push them to get the lights back up, for pedestrian safety.
He also noted that the Christmas Stocking fundraiser was coming up short and could use additional donations.
Water and Sewer Commissioners
The Brattleboro Selectboard acting as Water & Sewer Commissioners took up two pieces of related business Tuesday night.
The first was a Reimbursement Resolution. This is a promise to ourselves that we’ll pay for some work on the Black Mountain Gravity Line now, then pay ourselves back using a loan from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation later on. It was approved.
The second item was a more general update on progress with the Waste Water Treatment Plant project.
You might have thought that this project was done long ago, with the town holding a ribbon-cutting almost two years ago, but it was not. After many tweaks and adjustments, Public Works Director Steve Barrett said just about everything is now complete and in good working order except for work on the Black Mountain Gravity Feed sewer line. That should be finished in June 2015.
Barrett said a successful test hole under I-91 bodes well for the Black Mountain project.
One of the final issues had been a debate between the town, engineers, and contractor over responsibility for the performance of the 2 Pad digesting at the plant and change orders. Other lingering issues included wiring, pump replacement, and mixing.
The town had been withholding payment until issues were resolved, and all parties now have been paid and claims have been settled.
The project had an estimated bond of $32.8 million, and the town believes the project can be completed without borrowing the full amount, and come in $487,175 under budget. The Department of Public Works expects the plant to serve Brattleboro for 20 years, “if not longer.”
John Allen asked about odors. Barrett said with things working properly odors had been subdued, though backup scent units can be used. He said Class A sludge would be created, too, after some adjustments. It can be sold if certified.
FY16 Budget Discussion
The FY16 Municipal Budget has been revised by the Selectboard. This resulted in a few changes to the numbers.
Review the FY16 Budget as it currently stands here.
The budget now includes the addition of $140,204 in interest on $4.7 million worth of additional bond borrowing for Police and Fire facilities, and $172,000 in additional capital items of a second police cruiser, an increase in paving, and new Gibson-Aiken windows.
The Police Fire money is intended to complete the two fire station projects and establish a $1 million “deposit” toward the police facility.
This new budget pays for $828,000 in capital needs over five years, with the first payment of $185,000 paid in cash and the remainder financed over four years. The additional $172,000 of capital items are not being financed. Instead, the board hopes to pay for them with an FY16 capital transfer.
The total FY16 budget now comes to $15,721,494.
The FY16 Municipal Property Tax Rate, then, would be $1.1902, up from $1.1655 in FY15, for an increase of $.0247.
(If the oft-rejected 1% Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) is implemented, the property tax rate goes down as some costs are shifted to those paying the 1% sales tax. See Local Option tax discussion below.)
What does this mean for your municipal property tax bill?
As it now stands, taxes are set to rise as follows:
On a $100k property, up $24.72
On a $150k property, up $37.08
On a $200k property, up $49.44
On a $250k property, up $61.80
On a $300k property, up $74.17
Police-Fire Facilities Project
The budget discussion evolved into a discussion of the Police and Fire facilities Project.
John Allen wanted it made clear that the Police and Fire Project was being authorized to buy land or a property.
Judy Davidson, a Town Meeting Representative, said she was against adding the $140,000 for additional bond borrowing. She suggested the board take that out and have a date for a separate vote on it, after it has been properly discussed. She said people need to hear why it costs what it costs, and why the cost reduction over last year was slight. Many aspects of the project have changed, such as the location of the police facility, she said.
“Last year’s town meeting was exhausting,” she told the board. “I’m afraid if we don’t have a public process, we’ll do it again. Town Meeting isn’t the place to have the conversation. I urge you to reconsider your vote. There is more hope of moving ahead if you have the open, public discussion.”
Dick Degray heard this as criticism as his time as chair of the Selectboard and rose to say that there had been ample public participation under his watch. “I don’t believe a public process wasn’t held,” he double-negatived. He also wanted any surplus revenue to be used to pay for specific, needed capital items and not just thrown into the larger pool.
Another resident, Beverly, asked the board to “please not increase property taxes.” She said people were already challenged by the economy and state income taxes might be rising.
Representative George Reed-Savory said he agreed that the bond interest payments should be taken out of the budget and put to a special meeting. “Open it to the community.”
David Schoales said he wanted it in the budget now so the process could unfold. “The process has to keep moving,” he said. “Having it on the warning for Representative Town Meeting means that a large group will review it. That’s democracy.”
John Allen said that no one comes to the committee’s public meetings. “It’s the public’s fault,” he said. “It’s Town Meeting Representatives’ fault for not coming.” He said that everything had been discussed, but that things had also been moving quickly in the last few months and there are “lots of moving parts.”
Allen said he wants the town to move out of the Municipal Center within a year, and that the project “must move forward,” and that “ it’s democracy and we have to keep moving.”
Kate O’Connor pointed out that there had been no public discussion of moving the police from downtown to Putney Road. “Maybe I was asleep, but I’ve never heard that discussion. It’s a big deal to me.”
Donna Macomber agreed that people needed answers to questions, and that long-range planning should be done when the new Town Manager arrives in less than a month, but “It’s up to us to keep forward momentum.” She said there needed to be a discussion about moving the police station, but didn’t say if that would happen before Representatives vote on a new location.
David Gartenstein said he was against adding the bond interest payments in at this time. “Much broader planning is necessary before we can commit to a specific version of the project going forward,” he said. “Plans shift day to day. That’s not a way to do long range planning.”
He said the Police and Fire Facilities Committee makes recommendations, but “the committee isn’t the whole of public input,” and that the public process would unfold one way or another. “Moving the police and emptying 1/3 of the building requires full public discussion.”
Gartenstein noted that the board had been relatively unified in decisions, except for this one.
Unassigned Fund Balance
The unassigned fund balance is approximately $1,962,000 in unassigned cash available, and Brattleboro has a guideline to keep 10% of the budget (about $1.5 million) reserved for emergencies, such as Hurricane Irene damage.
John Allen told the board that he could see dipping into the fund to pay for a grader, a police cruiser, paving, Gibson Aiken Center windows, and fire department air packs, totaling by his estimate almost $700,000.
David Gartenstein disagreed wholeheartedly, and listed a series of immediate emergency repairs that would need to be paid for, such as the failure of the Green Street wall, an outflow pipe under the railroad, a hole in the Elliot Street bridge, and work needed at the Municipal Center.
He said the board would decide on dipping into the fund on January 20 at their next regular meeting.
David Schoales said that “some say it should always go to lower taxes,” adding that there were all kinds of opinions.
Municipal Center Improvements
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland and Steve Horton, Police-Fire Project Manager, provided the Brattleboro Selectboard an overview of the required improvements to the Municipal Center. The board, however, hadn’t had time to fully review it and decided to put off discussions for now.
Why are the repairs needed? Brattleboro submitted plans to the Division of Fire Safety in conjunction with the now-retired plans to improve the Police facilities at the Municipal Center. As such, the agency came and inspected the building as requested, then found code violations.
Repairs could cost $450,000 if done together. Brattleboro also has permission to use a phased approach to the improvements, upgrading the fire panel and alarm system this year, installing a new sprinkler system in FY16, and final improvements to the building in FY17. This approach has an estimated budget of $500,000.
Mumbles were heard about moving out of the building and leaving tenants, or selling the building, but this, too, seems destined for later discussion.
“All these things are coming together rapidly,” said John Allen. “We need more discussions.”
Human Services Town Meeting Article
The Human Services Committee of Representative Town Meeting is recommending $120,000 worth of support to local organizations, and this request will be an article warned for the meeting.
Most of the funds go to support programs for children, seniors, health, those of other ability, the hungry, and the houseless.
Twenty-eight agencies submitted requests.
The only question was whether the museum had asked for money for building upkeep, or if it was being given to them. “If they don’t need it we don’t need to give it,” said Kate O’Connor.
Moreland said that part of the 40 year, $1 lease was a previous arrangement to help with basic building maintenance, but not specific requests. He said he’d check to see if they had specific needs, but said he hadn’t heard any expressed to date.
Local Option Sales Tax Discussion
The Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) was again a topic of discussion from the Brattleboro Selectboard.
The tax has been repeated rejected by voters. The State would take a share of the revenue, leaving Brattleboro with about 65% of the income from the LOST, an estimate of about $600,000. No Vermont towns that border New Hampshire have a Local Option Sales tax.
“I’m not in favor,” said David Gartenstein. “It keeps getting discussed and voted down repeatedly. I don’t have the stomach for it.”
John Allen agreed and wondered how many times something had to be voted on before a side admits defeat. “I don’t have the stomach for it, either, and always vote against it.,” he said. “How many times do you lose before you give up?”
David Schoales wanted to let the public vote on the matter. “I’d like to see it on warning and ballot to get a sense from the public ,” adding “I don’t think there are enough [votes] to pass it.”
Donna Macomber said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. She agreed with Schoales that insanity was necessary. “I don’t think it will pass, but it is something we can put to the town.”
Kate O’Connor said she was against the 1% tax and had provided the board with a list of items that would be taxed.
Judy Davidson said she voted against it at least two times, “but it should be back on the ballot and at Representative Town Meeting.”
Dick Degray said the tax would capture transient money, from tourists. “We should push forward, “ he told the board. “Put it on the ballot to see if there is continued support for it. It cannot go away.” He added that while other stores oppose the tax, there was no reason to be held hostage by merchants.
The issue required no action, and none was taken. It will be on the agenda of the next meeting for a decision.
Windham Solid Waste Management District Budget Discussion
The Windham Solid Waste Management District has proposed a budget that includes a 5.6% increase in net expenses, in part due to increased education and outreach to implement Act 142 (PAYT) according to the WSWMD.
$166,462 is Brattleboro’s projected share of the FY16 expenses, an increase of just under $9,000 over last year. WSWMD pays Brattleboro a payment in lieu of taxes, equal to $14,500 in FY15.
In response to earlier questions of what the organization provides to Brattleboro, a list of Solid Waste Entity requirements was supplied to the Selectboard as well as a list of monetary benefits to the town, such as saving millions in landfill disposal costs and tipping fees.
David Gartenstein laid his concerns on the table, stating that Brattleboro taxpayers pay for recycling pickup in municipal taxes, but are being charged by the district for recycling pickup. He felt this was double billing.
WSWMD management didn’t have a good response for this, other than Brattleboro gets some things others towns do not, such as the Service Center, extra outreach to businesses and schools. If fees would be charged for services, they countered, all services could have fees associated with them.
Much of the discussion was about the boxes at Fairground Road. Brattleboro pays almost $60,000 a year to have them, and it is unclear who uses them. Some residents of town, for sure, but quite possibly people from outside the WSWMD.
John Allen said he was uncomfortable because surrounding towns were voting against the WSWMD budget. He hoped the organization would change.
Kate O’Connor started to make a motion, but the WSWMD representative jumped in pre-emptively to tell her that they could instruct a town rep to vote a specific way, but the rep could vote anyway they chose.
Duly noted, O’Connor nonetheless made a motion to instruct the Brattleboro representative to vote no on the WSWMD budget. Once the double-billing for recycling pickup is resolved, said Gartenstein, Brattleboro can endorse the budget. The motion passed 3-2, with Macomber and Schoales voting against.
Brattleboro gets 6 of 25 votes at the meeting, due to our population and our hosting of the facility.
Charter Amendment Town Meeting Articles
Town Clerk Annette Cappy asked the board to add two changes to the Representative Town Meeting warning. Both are requested amendments to the Charter.
The first would change the deadline for incumbent Town Meeting Representatives to declare they’re intention to run. This change is being proposed to make the deadline the same as that for new candidates. Both would share a six week deadline to submit their notice of intent to be on the ballot.
The second would allow for mechanical tabulation of ballots that come via early voting. Voters choosing to vote early in the Town Clerk’s office would deposit their ballots in the tabulation machine and secure ballot box. Brattleboro would be the first in the state to use this approach.
She said it would streamline the early voting process. She told the board to think of a 45 day election period rather than an election day, as many people vote early.
Cappy said that the articles, being charter changes, would require discussion at the Representative Town Meeting, then an official vote at a future meeting.
David Gartenstein asked about the security of ballots, and Cappy told him that results could not be determined until the machine was closed down. She said the machines were locked and sealed.
Spoon Agave wondered how early voting, beginning before some campaigns even begin, impacts the electoral process.
Both were accepted by the selectboard for inclusion on the Representative Town Meeting warning.
Futures Committee Town Meeting Article
The Brattleboro Selectboard had trouble accepting an article for the Representative Town Meeting warning that calls for the creation of a Committee of the Future.
Spoon Agave handed the board revised language for the article, with more details suggested by the Town Meeting Moderator and Town Attorney.
David Gartenstein wondered why this article didn’t go through the process of collecting petition signatures. Agave said Town Meeting Representatives had requested a report at the next meeting and the formation of a Futures Committee. Agave said the report would be ready before the meeting, and this was the request for the committee.
Kate O’Connor was worried about setting precedent. John Allen, David Schoales, and Donna Macomber thought it would be fine to put it on the agenda.
Annette Cappy said that if the article was a change to the charter, it would be discussed at the meeting and then voted on at a future meeting, like her articles. Agave said he would find out if the Moderator or Town Attorney thought that forming a committee of Representative Town Meeting required a change to the charter.
The Selectboard tabled the matter until their next meeting, pending more information from Agave.
Committee and Board Vacancies
You can volunteer your time, knowledge, expertise, and energy to help keep Brattleboro running smoothly. Numerous committee and board vacancies are available for your consideration.
Openings available for the Agricultural Advisory Board, BASIC, Conservation Commission, Development Review Board and alternate, Energy Committee, Fence Viewer, Honor Roll Committee, Inspector of Shingles & Wood, Planning Commission, Recreation & Parks Board, Senior Solutions Representative, and SEVCA Representative.
You are welcome to signal your intent to serve by January 29, 2015. Appointments will be made at the regular selectboard meeting of February 3rd, with interview prior if necessary.
Spoon Agave pointed out that the Development Review Board would soon be down to just four members, no alternates, and a Chair that often recuses himself for business relation reasons. Soon, he said, the board won’t be able to function. He suggested they consider reducing the board to five members.
Appointment of Peter Elwell as Town Manager
Peter Elwell was appointed new Town Manager of Brattleboro, effective January 20, 2015 at 7 a.m. Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland will resume his duties as Assistant Town Manager at that time.
Brattleboro Skatepark
Per previous discussions of the Selectboard, I would like to know where the RTM article is that is requesting the $20,000 from the Town to be used for the Brattleboro Skatepark, now slated to be built at the Northeast corner of the Living Memorial Park? We did watch John Allen propose this at a recent SB meeting where the new location was discussed, did we not? Has it already been lost in the minutia…?
Pretty sure it's there
I’m forgetting who, but I’m pretty sure someone mentioned that it was already in the budget. It might have been Gartenstein when he was warning of other projects with costs associated.
To be certain, make sure someone speaks with the board before the warning is set Jan 29.
Police/Fire Facilities Tax Rate Increase
Your information, provided by the Town, says, “On a $200k property, (taxes will go up $49.44”. I did a calculation on the tax rate increase for my own home a couple of years ago. The home was valued at about $200,000, and the tax rate increase was about $250 a year.
Why the discrepancy?
I think the reason for the difference is that the original figures quoted the increase for both bonds on the $14.1 million total figure for the project overall, and we are now being quoted the increase for only the new bond.
And this is exactly why I get
And this is exactly why I get frustrated with the way figures are presented. If YOU are confused about the actual cost in additional taxes for the project as apparently privy to information as you are then how is the average Joe or Jane Taxpayer supposed to know what the hedoublehockeysticks is going on?
I thought that that $50 a year figure just given out seemed low also. I think the town/SB needs to present a very clear and concise explanation for the real costs of this project to homeowners. Not just what this new loan is going to be, not just what the costs on the interest, some real actual hard figures per home value. And I don’t see that happening, these new figures seem extremely low.
What would it look like?
I struggle with conveying this information every time it comes up. The numbers seem far out of context. They are the numbers the town is working with, though, so it makes sense to someone. : )
I think most people paying property tax are in tune with what their total municipal tax payment is each year. For the sake of this argument, let’s say we paid $6,000 last year in municipal taxes.
The numbers we might be looking for this year:
– what is the total budget number? (a big number most barely can comprehend)
– what is the tax rate? (a number good for listers, but confusing to everyone else)
– what will I pay if this is approved?
If I hear that this year I will also pay $6,000 (or less), I’d be happy, but curious how they did it. If It was going to be $6,250, I’d worry that it might go up like this every year. I’d also be looking at the new costly trash bags and rising water and sewer rates coming.
Better still, would be to put this in context, showing what the homeowner has paid for the previous few years, or decade. That might show that 10 years ago I paid under $4000, which might give me further pause.
What would others like to see?
One of the problems is that there isn’t really a clear and concise explanation of Police Fire costs. The Fire buildings have some non-concise and detailed estimates, as they are almost ready to go. The Police project has no final plans, and as of now, doesn’t even have a location determined. So the Police side of things is all estimate for now.
John O’Connor said, too, that his $600k number for the LOST is just a guess, and that it would be almost impossible to really know revenue unless it were enacted.
Many of the major repairs needed also have no set budget, yet. The Municipal Center repairs seem to come to half a million, but the board may move out or sell the building. Failing walls and outflows will get budgets when projects are put in motion. We just know they will set us back.
The figures may seem low because trash and recycling costs are being shifted into personal budgets, too.
What seems low is the figure
What seems low is the figure of around $50 accorded to the cost of the project. A year ago, as John stated the figure bandied about was quite a bit higher. This causes confusion. I agree that looking at tax rates over an expanded period of time would be useful but it will also be a bit concerning. When I looked back at my tax rates I have seen a precipitous rise unlike anyplace else I have lived in my life. It’s one think to have a rise of a few hundred dollars over a few years, quite another to be talking a few thousand.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would point out that there might be method to all this confusion but I won’t.
If?
What do you mean, *if* you were a conspiracy theorist? 😉
It is difficult
to boil it down and connect the relevant figures in a way that’s accurate and meaningful for readers.
One of the problems is that the bottom line budget figure does not relate directly to tax rates/bills. You could have a whopping budget increase that has no impact on the tax rate if there is an increase in non-property tax revenue that offsets the budget increase.
The budget is just projected spending, as you know. Property taxes are only part of the revenue the town receives. So you have to look deeper into the budget to see what has changed from the previous year or years. I do think comparisons between the current budget and tax rate and the proposed budge and tax rate are relevant for most people.
Listing major line item changes, like solid waste this year, is also helpful, but particularly if you can provide some rudimentary analysis. (“The town’s widget costs have risen 50% to $1 million, but anticipated federal widget grants of $950,000 will more than offset the increased cost.”) After Tropical Storm Irene, towns had a lot of budget increases, but in most cases 90% or more was offset by state and federal aid. It was important to let voters know that the bulging budgets weren’t the result of poor fiscal management and that the impact would be substantially cushioned. In many cases, it happened over two fiscal years, so it could be hard to see in the fiscal budget.
If you want to have some real fun, try explaining the school budget. For 2016, the proposed Bratt school budget is down, but the homestead tax rate will go up by 8 cents.
Spend less, pay more!
Bonds Don't Have the Same Cost "A Year"
I think what confuses people is that bonds don’t cost the same amount each year. They’re not like a car or house loan payment where it’s $X every month or year. As I understand it, bonds have a first year payment that is only interest (the lowest it will be) and then starting with the second year the payments cover both principal and interest (so the second year is the highest it will be).
For example (and these aren’t real numbers from the town, but they illustrate the point) a 15-year bond of $4,700,000 might require payments of $141,000 (low first year), $476,714 (high second year), $466,643, $456,571, $446,500, $436,429, $426,357, $416,286, $406,214, $396,143, $386,071, $376,000, $365,929, $355,857, and $345,786 (last year) – total payments of $5,898,500.
There are huge differences between the impact of the first year cost of $141,000, the second year cost of $476,714, and the last year cost of $345,768. There might be some value in discussing the average ($5,898,500 / 15) as a “per year” cost, but that’s just not the way the payments actually work.
The only way to show the costs accurately, especially by different home values (assuming stable tax rate over 15 years!) is in a spreadsheet table. I’m sure the town has those figures and would gladly share them, but the newspaper’s not going to print a table like that.
I recently had posted that the FIRST year cost of a $9,000,000 bond in FY15 would have meant a $45 cost for the owner of a $200,000 home. The SECOND year it would have cost more like $130, then maybe $125 the third, $120, $115, etc.
It’s not a conspiracy (at least I don’t think it is!) – it’s just complicated. I really like Chris’s suggestion of showing the tax impact as part of the whole cost (e.g. $45 out of $2,372 total tax) and historical costs (e.g. total tax for FY2005 was $1,904) for every major proposal.
That explains the discrepancy
That explains the discrepancy between these new figures and what we saw last year. Thanks. I think it would behoove the town to take what you just wrote or something similar and make sure it is available to taxpayers. It would be helpful. If they just release this new figure of $40 a year and then suddenly it jumps 3x next year people will be perplexed and probably a little annoyed. It all just needs to be explained clearly and concisely which you just did, but with some real figures, that would be helpful. Thanks for the easy to read, clear explanation.
Full costs of projects
The Energy Committee recently suggested that the Town consider all costs from start to finish, and present them to taxpayers before embarking on capital projects. It seems likely to happen in the coming months, so that may help.
Greatest Bond Cost to Taxpayers Will Be in 2016-17
Yes, the first year impact of a bond on tax rates is lower than the second one. The reason is that the first year payment is always a payment of interest only. The second year payment also includes principal (payback of the borrowed funds) plus interest. This is why as a member of the Finance Committee, I always asked to see the figures for the first few years emphasized.
Cost to the taxpayer goes down on an annual basis, as Glenn has said here, but this can vary according to the terms of whatever bond is taken out.
One must remember in considering all of this that the Police Fire project is shaping up to be two bonds, not one. The first bond was already taken out, in the amount of $5 million, in fiscal 2013. There was scheduled to be a second bond taken out, but this was delayed by Selectboard action in the budget amendment process last year (after the budget for the Town overall was defeated).
Now, a revised plan is being put forward which changes the original Police Fire project. Instead of adding onto the Municipal Center to create a new and better police station, the Selectboard proposes to build an entirely new police station, most recently approving the purchase of one of two possible sites in North Brattleboro along Putney Road.
Please note that the Selectboard’s most recent action is to approve bonding the purchase of the property where the new Police station will go, and that this purchase will cost in the neighborhood of $5 million. However, it does NOT include construction or renovation costs, which will probably also be in the millions. We may be looking once again at a total overall cost between $12-15 million once all the convolutions in the planning of this project pan out.
Now remember where we were a year and a half ago, with a project approved by the Representative Town Meeting to cost no more than $14.1 million. The Selectboard put the project on hold, effectively stalling it, then began to consider large revisions to the project, greatly changing it.
My counsel to Robin Sweetapple, Chair of the Police Fire Project Oversight Committee, was to work with the Selectboard to cut the project to the neighborhood of $10 million overall. I suggested this could be done by holding off on most of the renovations to the West Brattleboro firehouse #2. This would have gotten the primary features of the project done, all of which are now to be located in the new (renovated with additions) Fire facility on Elliot Street or were originally to be located in the Municipal Center and its planned addition. Renovations to firehouse #2 were made less urgent when the Selectboard decided to move the emergency crisis center planned for that facility back to the main firehouse.
One more thing: The Selectboard voting to split the project’s cost into two bonds was done in order to ease the apparent cost to the taxpayer by not borrowing all the money at once. The risk was that bond interest rates, then low, might rise. [I’m not sure where they are now.] But of course there is a political ramification. See chart below.
Year One (FY 2013-14) Payment of interest on Bond #1 ($5 million principal)
Year Two (FY 2014-15) Payment of interest and principal on Bond #1 sends annual cost to its highest place during the entire term of the bond.
Year Three (FY 2015-16) Payment of interest and principal on Bond #1, PLUS payment of interest on Bond #2. Bond #1 numbers go down slightly but Bond #2 interest is added, so taxpayers are paying significantly more.
Year Four (FY 2016-2017) Payment of interest and principal on both bonds is added together. If Bond #2 winds up being much larger than Bond #1, this means that this year will see the single highest increase in taxes for the project.
So the political ramification is that the taxpayer is not shouldering the full burden for four years into the project. And various ways of talking about the project, such as what’s transpiring at the current time, may (at the talker’s discretion) de-emphasize the total cost by discussing only the cost of *that* year’s additions to the total sum.
Note that the current budget planning is for FY 2015-16. But the decision made about bonding the project this year will have its greatest impact (in terms of tax burden) not this coming fiscal year, but the one after (2016-17).
Now the big question in my mind is this: Will Representative Town Meeting re-affirm the project as it was originally approved (by a 3-1 ratio) in RTM 2013? If we did this, we would negate all the machinations of the Selectboard and others since that time. Remember, RTM is considered to be the higher, policy-making authority, while the Selectboard is considered by most to be part of the ‘executive branch’ of the Town government.
Police-Fire Project --- ILLEGITIMATE PROCESS
Mr. Degray defended himself, but George Reed-Savory confirmed Ms. Davidson’s remarks. She and Mr. Reed-Savory were right, and they said it mildly. The process has been illegitimate and distorted from the start. At the rep town meeting in 2012, where the police-fire project (PFP) was approved, the moderator violated the legal procedures of the meeting (Roberts Rules). He gave Mr. DeGray the first forty minutes of the meeting to pass the microphone to other PFP supporters. After multiple objections the moderator proclaimed that “We don’t operate by Roberts Rules: we operate by OUR OWN RULES!” and justified the special treatment because DeGray was a proponent of the bond!! So, the vote was illegitimate. (see video http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T01304&video=133394 at time counter 155)
And I said “from the start”: workers for Brattleboro Common Sense found paper records at town hall (they’re not on the town web site) of the very first PFP committee meeting. The committee’s first “points of inquiry” were 1) which architects to hire, and 2) where to build. They never considered other less expensive remedies: only construction. The discussion has been one-sided.
I Don't Agree
Kurt, I watched the section of the video in which you stood and protested Mr. DeGray’s speaking as often as he did.
Mr. O’Connor was correct in that the Representative Town Meeting has its own version of rules and procedures for conducting its meetings. They are on page 16 of the Town Charter:
RULES OF PROCEDURES FOR BRATTLEBORO REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING
The following Rules of Procedures for Brattleboro Representative Town Meetings are hereby recommended pursuant to vote of the Town Meeting members at the annual meeting in 1961 and subsequent appointment by the selectboard.
I. Voting –
1. Voting on all matters shall be by standing, by division of the Town Meeting Members, or by roll call vote of the Town Meeting Members.
2. A division of the Town Meeting Members shall be held in the discretion of the Moderator or upon demand of three or more of said Members.
3. A roll call vote shall be had upon demand of six or more Town Meeting Members.
II. Debate –
1. No Town Meeting Member, or voter of the town shall speak more than twice on the same question without leave of the Town Meeting Members.
2. Town Meeting Members, or voters of the town, who have once spoken shall not again be entitled to the floor to the exclusion of another who has not spoken.
3. A Town Meeting Member may not “call the question” immediately after speaking on the issue.
III. Committees –
1. Special committees may be established by the Town Meeting Members.
2. On the motion of a Town Meeting Member, any Meeting may resolve itself into a committee of the whole Meeting on any pending question.
< ...>
I am not aware if the Town is formally committed to Robert’s Rules of Order. It is clear that the Selectboard does not abide by their rules per se – (no second is required to a motion there).
ILLEGITIMATE PROCESS
Of the rules that you listed the moderator flagrantly violated debate rules 1 and 2. He also violated the two-minute speaking limit that the moderator customarily announces. The moderator even invented a new rule: DeGray had “unrestricted limited time” in speaking for the proposal. We had in effect limited time for debate, and most of it was illegitimately reserved for the PFP team. Whether you call them Roberts Rules or not, the moderator encouraged DeGray to violate them. That’s the point, John. The only one he didn’t violate was the one he made up. This is how the PFP was approved, and the people should know about it.
Did John Allen actually say this ? ? ?
“Allen said he wants the town to move out of the Municipal Center within a year, and that the project “must move forward,” and that “ it’s democracy and we have to keep moving.”
What does he plan on doing with an empty Municipal Center? Where will the current town employees that are housed there be moving to? Is he planning on a new building for them also? Than again…..why not?. “it’s democracy and we have to keep moving”.
“must move forward”? Why the rush? Isn’t it imperitive that those paying have a complete understanding and have their voices heard via a vote?
“its democracy”? There’s a real question of Johns defination of democracy particularily in light of the fact that he doesn’t connect the residents voting down the budget as not supporting the PFD project as approved by the Town Meeting Members last March.
Did John Allen actually say thi ? ? ?
Carrottop,
People everywhere doubt the responsiveness of their government, and here in Brattleboro it’s in doubt too. Yes. Mr. Allen said that. In the selectboard meeting early October 2014 he also said — referring no doubt to the referendums — that he was tired of “being railroaded”. (There’s democratic attitude for you.) He wanted to push the PFP without confirming town support. Mr. Gartenstein disputed this attitude. So, he at least is trying to be democratic, but says he doesn’t know the feelings of the people and throws his hands up. In November 2012 the board refused to honor the petition for referendum on the PFP. That was the right time to see what the people felt. Then after the May 2014 budget referendum he commented that it was clear the people opposed the budget because of the PFP. Then the board floated that misleading tax resolution to help the PFP. Gartenstein may want to be fair now, but the total behavior of the board and rep town meeting is still undemocratic. (Pro-Democracy Amendments to the rescue!)
Brattleboro Common Sense did a survey on precisely that subject in April. It showed a very strong correlation between opposition to the budget and opposition to the PFP. This was forwarded to Mr. Schoales, who apparently did not share it with Gartenstein. They will have it by e-mail tomorrow.
I don't know about the
I don’t know about the October 2014 meeting. I was referring to the SB meeting just this past Tuesday and referenced in the above notes.
Town Budget Already Available!
I am embarrassed to say that while I didn’t catch it until this morning, Chris included a link to the proposed budget information in the original story. Not only would the town be happy to share the information, they already did!
Brattleboro Proposed FY16 Budget Information (same link as in main story)
That may not have the specific answer for every single question people have, but it’s got a lot of them and the data to figure things out. Chris highlighted the most significant numbers, but if you’re wondering about something else look through that document. Revenue to by raised by taxes? $13,758,535. New PFP bond? They’re looking at a 20 year bond, first year cost $140,204, second year $401,098, last year $240,360. Property tax impact by home value, FY14 actual costs by line, figures with and without LOST, FY16 projections? It’s all in there and available.
It may be – it is! – confusing, but if there’s a problem it isn’t that anyone’s hiding anything, it’s in figuring out a way to talk about all the various numbers in a way that lets people compare apples to apples. Take one person talking about a PFP cost of $14.1M, someone else talking about a municipal tax increase of $49, and someone else talking about a total property tax burden of $5,672; if only they could get a common reference they might discover that they were in violent agreement. Unfortunately that’s much easier said than done, but clearly the town is trying.
Big Apples
I supplied the link because it can be confusing, and I knew I couldn’t really do it justice in a meeting summary.
I’m reminded a bit of how the town used to raise money. In ye olden days (1800’s) a project would be proposed with a budget, and subscriptions would be taken. Those wishing to help fund a project would contribute. Sometime this would take the form of stock, but not always. Sometimes people or businesses who wanted things done would pony up and pay. It didn’t all come from taxes. When have we done that recently?
This wasn’t quite as hard when the electric railway needed $15,000, but those were still real dollars to people (About $435,000 in today’s dollars, if web calculators are to be trusted).
Imagine if the major businesses and wealthiest people in town did a bit of fundraising for the Police and Fire Facilities. Could the impact to taxpayers be reduced by a few million, or entirely? Probably. Some might argue that they have a vested interest in doing this, to ensure a quality community to attract good employees and stay competitive.
Note that the linked budget numbers still may change. The board will finalize their decisions on Jan 29. Things can change.
Good question
“How many times do you lose before you give up?”
Usually, it goes on and on until the Powers That Be get what they want.