The Brattleboro Selectboard decided that a 12.1% increase is the best that they can do, ignoring members of the public and the Finance Committee who said it wasn’t enough but agreeing with the Town Manager who said the increase was necessary to avoid chaos.
One theme throughout the evening was that of continual eroding trust in the selectboard and their decision-making. “People are mad at us for a lot of different reasons,” noticed Chair Daniel Quipp. “We should think about it. Do we always have to make them a little more mad?”
A sub-theme was extreme agitation about representation at all levels of town government.
Weird meeting. If I were a Magic 8 ball I’d suggest “outlook not good.”
Preliminaries
6:16…
Chair Daniel Quipp – it is very cold this week. In the last month we’ve heard concerns about folks who are unsheltered in dangerous conditions. Town, state, and community partners are working to expand shelter capacity. The Charter Revision Commission – Feb 6 meeting at 6pm – to explore issues about Town Meeting and the Charter.
Town Manager John Potter – Thanks town staff and others working through cold weather – fire at Fulflex last night, and DPW helped out and the water main break on Putney Rd. It shut off water for some today but all water should be restored by 9 pm tonight. Reminder that 2025 dog license renewals are due. Petitions for candidates are available.
Public
Daniel – listen respectfully when we disagree and treat this space with respect and have some decorum.
Dick Degray – I believe I am in number 8. Is the financial update going to be on the first meeting of the Feb – EMS financials and going over of the audit? And, how is our search for the new fire chief going? We’ve had a round of interviews. I assume people applying locally, but position has been reposted, so I assume it won’t be someone local, which would be disappointing.
Potter – the agenda committee would put it on the first mtg in February, and no update on Fire Chief.
Bob Oeser – District 9. First, thank for the reminder to read the auditors report. In the beginning there were three things that were disturbing – the general fund had a deficit of over a million, and other funds had deficits. This may be not on the agenda, bit what is the significance of that and how did it happen, and how does it impact us going forward.
Daniel – we’ll look at it at the first mtg in February.
Kate O’Connor – I want to clarify – Dick asked and Bob asked it… will you be talking about the audit ?
Daniel – taken under advisement… anyone else?
more
Evans Franz – I’m concerned that there hasn’t been a commitment to discuss the audit, when we are talking about over a million – the community needs to talk of these numbers. I’ve spoken to many who are concerned about the budget and planning for the future.
Daniel – there are three requests to put it on the agenda – you are heard.
Consent agenda
A. Retreat Farm Annual Entertainment License Renewal Updated Hours – Approve
B. Pleasant Valley WTF Change Order #8 – Approve $1,319.43 Change Order
C. Women’s March Parade Permit – Ratify
consented…
(WTF Change Order … heh heh)
Chapter 15 (Downtown Improvement District) Ordinance Change – Third Reading
Sue Fillion – so this is the 3rd reading. Some amendments are to clean up some of the elements describing boundaries – some institutions are no longer there. You wanted an advisory vote aded back in… I want to explain about that and it is back. An advisory vote of property owners that pay the special assessment. The reason I recommended removing it, we had to renew our designation every 5 years, then every 8 years, then the requirement was removed. So that’s why. I propose every five years – easy to remember. Te Town Clerk has conducted the vote in the past. It costs about $4-800 to run the vote. It will be advisory only.
Daniel – a 3rd reading, and you heard the change has been added. Ready to move forward or further changes, or questions?
Liz McCloughin – thanks, I’m ready.
Franz Reichsman – thanks, Sue. I favor this provision – some level of approval. Glad we took the time to look at it and come to a conclusion.
Richard – 5 or 8 years? (5)
Sue – it is usually 5 but we missed it two years ago, missed by staff. Not a requirement anymore.
Daniel – Public? No?
approved 5-0
FY 26 Selectboard General Fund Budget – Approve
Daniel – John ?
John Potter – the memo is in your packet. It speaks for itself. A $25.2 million budget. 12.1% increases. It is about policies and priorities – chaos in disorder in the community, and keeping what we love… dealing with the chaos better while not sacrificing services. The downtown safety action plan is a key component of the budget. The total amount for it is $600k. Why 3 new officers and why the Brat team? Chief Hardy says 5 would be reasonable. Some believe the number of officers from years ago can handle the largest crime rate in the state. Downtown requires a constant police presence. A dedicate level 3 officer for all shifts is required. There is a misconception that this only benefits downtown. But it will include all of downtown. This will reduce calls . Other officers can be freed up to address crime at local motels and traffic issues, drug dealing and human trafficking. Chief Hardy’s plan to fully staff the department will help address fights and car break-ins. Health hazards are becoming worse. If resources are not improved, promising recruits would have to be let go. Other departments across the state are being competitive. Chief Hardy said you asked for a plan and this was designed to do it. Without this, the solutions can’t occur. We will spend more than $600k for the state’s municipal motel program. There is no state support for that. If there are 200 people in the program, at least $691k will go for emergency response costs to those properties. If you look at the top 20 individual, that is $750k in the budget. 1.5 million for motels and the top 20, paid by taxpayers. The second policy questions was do you sacrifice programs to pay for these? This budget says no. People want town services ,like trash and library, and medical services, and parks, and good communication from the town, and transparency. Solid waste is the biggest change – over $500k increase. Cheaper than doing it individually. Back out the increases of police and solid waste…the total goes up only 5.3% like other towns in Vermont. So, the 5.3% increase (ahem) is due to contracts and union requirements. Professionalism is key to upholding Brattleboro. Municipal employees are working hard under high pressure. Minor issues become aggressive – public campaigns against employees, concerned or pressured by the public, safety concerns are up, they administer NARCAN. They get rid of needles. The emotional toll of assisting individuals is compounded by increasing hostility – we have to de-escalate zoning, traffic and other challenges. Police have violent encounters, witnessing deaths, witnessing violence against children. Being videotaped taped while working takes a toll. Fire department staff have increased involvement with mental health issues, emotional distress. Frequency of these incidents are increasing. Yet municipal employees continue to work. We have to prioritize retaining staff. Don’t take them for granted or overburden them with heavy workloads. Hollowing out municipal government will cause damage that is irreversible, without serious tax increases. This is about policies and priorities. We have a motion to approve this budget tonight, or guide us how you choose.
Daniel – good to hear the staff point of view. Now the board. This is what we are to approve… has anything changed, or go ahead as is?
Daniel – silence is we are happy to proceed.
Franz – please don’t say that. I was going to let others speak. I have spent most of the last two weeks thinking about this. John’s presentation is convincing and troubling and is an important ingredient in thinking about the budget and town operations. I will say though, I wish I had heard that a long time ago. Maybe I did and didn’t absorb it. This whole time, since September, I’ve been trying to come up with convincing reasons either way what were are doing is OK or not. Without that info it has been hard to come to a conclusion on this budget. There is a lot that I like, and things I’m starting to like. But not everything is resolved. Most troubling to me is the future implications of this budget. It came up at previous meetings. We have decided we won’t worry about it. It is for somebody other than us to be concerned about this budget and our changes for the town. People really don’t like it when their taxes go up. That is understandable. We reacted to that as “we can’t raise it as much as we proposed” – a completely honest perspective is we need the whole 22%, and additional money to repair the whole in the unassigned fund balance for the FY25 budget. There has been a failure to recognize the real level of sending and the damage it can do to future budgets. What is our acceptable level of budget reserves – it was 10%… we are down at 5% – is that good enough – we haven’t talked about it. Additionally, when we tried to lower the tax rate, we used one time sources that won’t be available in the future – we have depleted a bunch of town funds. All can be said to be necessary spending, but we haven’t done the work to really look at all the alternatives and the implications for the future for town finances and the budget. It is the most important thing we do each year, but there are too many unknowns and we should have taken a different approach over the last 3-12 months. We need to do better.
Daniel -alternatives to consider tonight? It isn’t a done deal.
Franz – there isn’t. It takes consultation and time. I can’t put it forward. It would have take a much longer effort. I asked for the alternatives, we said there would be time for it, it never happened.
Richard – when I see the budget, it is a living organism and keeps evolving. The budget process doesn’t have an end point. We could work on it for 12 years. Ou role is to decide when to stop doing that. We have to say we have done as much as we can and we’ve take in as much as we can, we could make it better perhaps, but the timeline and the work we’ve done already. If we present this budget, then I’m good with that.
Daniel – it does have an endpoint – we need a budget by July 1.
Liz – I appreciate Potter’s remarks. You can’t go downtown and see what is happening and the impact of the crisis. I welcome the police response and Chief Hardy’s leadership. Embrace the downtown policing plan. A dedicated downtown squad means the police can serve the rest of the community. We have reduce the budget a bunch and I appreciate the staff doing the work, but the call volume for police has gone up over 20% sine 2019. We had 13 officers when the Chief came to town. We need to pay for that. We need to pay for trash removal. These items require and increase in taxes. I’m good with this budget and I want to go forward with this budget. We need a robust discussion about the level of charitable giving. It is outside the norm. We need to understand what is and isn’t a municipal responsibility.
Peter – I support the budget and we should pass it tonight
Abby M – I am not a fan of this budget. There is so much to respond to. There was a presentation to the police about data and she presented about calls to the police and said a large number are for NON criminal activity. People are calling the police because there is no one else to call. Hiring more police feels really irresponsible for this town.
Mary D – Everything you said sounded great, but for town of Brattleboro medium taxpayers… 46.2% of the resident’s income is going to housing. If you are getting feedback, that’s why. It is burdensome. We love the town staff, but we are also being burdened. Have some sensitivity to that. rather than looking at the budget and keeping it under 5%, you are happy to find another way to charge us for something, like PAYT coming back. WE are hurting too. I wish there was better work done on this budget not just moving shells.
Liz – some of those things resonate with me and I want more revenue sharing with the state, and why Brattleboro taxpayers are burdened with state initiatives and state actions. We are a working class community, a poor community, and unable to pay the taxes that the state demand services we provide. I really want to work on that in the new year.
Kate O’Connor – nothing will surprise you – I have been saying it since the beginning. It is unfair to taxpayers. 12.1% in unacceptable. The way you have put this together is unacceptable. I have sat here and have been so upset. We are doomed if you think this is financially reponssible. We are not stable with this budget. You have done things that will hurt us immediately and in the future. $650k out of the unassigned fund balance. Added over $800k to the budget before you aw it. You have spent down funds wrong. You need to think about what is happening in the future. Lots of people only got a 2.5% COLA increase. This is a road to financial doom and gloom. You don’t understand it so we will repeat it next year. You are spending stuff down. What is left in the funds? You will vote for this but it is totally irresponsible. You can’t run or hide from the impacts of what you have done… the audit speaks to this, so I hope you talk about the audit in February and have some sympathy for taxpayers in the community.
Marta G – wasn’t there a program that motel property owners would reimburse for calls? And when we budget for police officers – we still tax on unfilled positions – how many years have there been unfilled positions and how many years?
Daniel – thanks.
John P – one thing the selectboard did is pass an ordinance to allow the town to collect funds but it was overridden at a special RTM. As for unfilled positions that we tax for.. that was before my time. A number of years we are down around 13 officers when we budgeted for 27 or so. That went into the fund balance. people were getting taxed but it rolled over…
Daniel – in all my six years, I don’t think the police has ever been fully staffed.
Liz – but we kept looking.
Sharon – article 10 – the charitable contributions appropriations – 461K this year. I thin tat we all have non-profits and organizations we like to contribute to. Not the town’s function to give that money out…
Daniel – it has funding for them in this budget… this question might be better for the warning we will be discussing.
Sharon – it goes to both – it is own the budget. I’d like to request an amendment to make it $0.
Jane – I’m seconding the comment on nonprofit donations. Not the town’s job to decide what to donate to. It is a personal choice. I donate to thing s that mean a lot to me. If you would not decide for me, I’d have more to donate to the places I choose to. The town is taking on way too much. The only place to go for services in VT is here. WE can help many or no one because we will go broke. It should be person’s choice. That’s why nonprofits have development coordinators.
Degray – John that was a great narrative – the sky is falling the sky is falling – I’m gal so many got her tonight due to so much crime outside, putting your lives at jeopardy. I remember 27 officers and three shots. Now we need 30 officers to provide a third shift? I scratch my head. Having too few created unassigned fund balance. This year’s suit, there was no surplus revenues. No one wondered where it was coming from. Kate is correct and others are correct. I hate when you say that it is only $380. For many, that is a lot of money. Many people have homes because they have been here long enough, and they have risen in value, but incomes don’t rise like properties. When the assessment hits our town, you’ll have the real impact of covid on property balances. a $12 budget increase… C&S is going to have a large layoff. It might be some in Brattleboro. They will have to make adjustments. But we aren’t asking for adjustments to this budget? People would give up things to keep taxes down… people would give up a 56 hour library. Until you make cuts, this budget is unacceptable. The town loses when you approve this, regardless of what John says.
Ray – a comment – the narrative that Potter presented feels heavily portraying a particular view of some pope around town, but doesn’t represent what a lot of other people feel. There was a lot of discussion of feelings… it doesn’t represent the feedback you’ve been getting around town and you haven’t taken that into account in the synopsis. “It’s not about the homeless” – there were lots of contradictory statements that makes it hard to trust your decisions. MY rents has already gone up because of taxes and insurance going up. It doesn’t stop. And if there are only 20 people who are the implications… it feels like a messy trap.. it’s not about this or not about that… but we prioritize a spending a lot of money and it might not lead to the solutions we want – people with access to human resources. Not just the 20 people – a lot of people benefit – families, youth… these are not a drain to the community and they deserve to be supported. IT helps the poor working class community feel welcome here. If you don’t keep those budgets in check it will just be air bibs and people who can pay high taxes.
Jackie R – I Worte down some things. One is all the service providers have phone numbers, Anyone can call them. people call the police because they know they will come and help. They don’t cal service providers for whatever reasons. So there are a lot of calls to the police.. the second thing. I know many people in town who reflect the kind of things you talk about John. I disagree that there is an equal number that disagree. I’ve been here 23 years. I talked to my neighbors. A lot of people. No budget can give to charity more than they have. If you are down to your last half a million, I give part of my money… if people call me and ask me to give, I don’t do it over the phone. I don’t know who you give it to… I could look at the budget, but… I can only give what I can afford. The increase in housing costs is across the board. Not just here. It is across the board. Everyone is having the problems, including the people who work for the town. They need financial support to keep them in this town. Town services here are very good. My trash gets picked up. If it doesn’t I can call. I know you and half the people working in the building. These are my people and I choose to support them. Thank you for all that you do.
Adam S – Hi I’m from London and it is my first time here….
Daniel – cool, thanks.
Bob O – close one. It is an old question I have – when you sent out the rep for trash, but it was only for one vendor to service the entire town? Why not an RFP for multiple vendors so that the town is completely covered? Why require on vendor?
Potter – it was a request for qualifications, so it didn’t mention what we wanted. We got one response and spoke with smaller vendors to make sure and no one was interested.
Emmet – I want to reemphasize what Abby said – a huge number of calls were not crimes and could benefit from social services. The influx of calls would not be addressed by more police officers on the ground. There is $10m of state fund as of April of 2024 for emergency shelters – what hasn’t that been tapped?
Daniel – what you speak to with state funding. We are working with the state and agencies… we saw that presentation. I hear the point…calls aren’t always crimes. But a police reposes might be useful. We have a department that is trained to respond to calls of all types and have good relationships with organizations. The Brat team will expand our capacity. Whether that leads to police funding going to another entity… we are not in that universe. maybe in several years. Our work on community safety in recent years – missed opportunities and the way we spent fund..same. But it was urgent Transportation Center items. Not very call is a crime, but it doesn’t mean police responding isn’t helpful. I’ll close discussion..
Melissa – went to school here, lived her… I want to thank John for his presentation. I wis we heard it a couple of meetings ago. It had to be said. The one question I have – the social services budget gets decided by RTM and that is in the budget now. I would support Chief Hardy and the increase is needed. I don’t feel safe. I work near downtown. I understand the police aren’t necessary in every situation… but it has gotten out of control in the name of compassion. safety is the most important part of the budget. And roads. That should be the focus.
Christina – I am also an RTMmember, but for myself… the finance committee gave you their advisement and you ignored it. Just listening to all the budget discussions and your responses, it is hard to reconcile how you feel about ti and how most everyone else feels about the budget. It is a good indication the budget won’t be approved this roving. So, that is a really good indication that we will be here after RTM and will have to consider the advisement again. There is time to slow down. You will get there faster if you go slow. You will just come back and redo it. As a parent in the community, I need the services supported – it isn’t charity. If you want Dunkin’ Donuts, you have to subsidize the working class people who don’t make enough to survive here.
Spencer C – I talked to two social workers today. Everyone has huge challenges and everyone wants to do their best. Perfect doesn’t exist. Thanks for listening. Potter’s presentation was good. Public safety is paramount municipal function. If we don’t have that, you don’t have a town. People won’t shop here. Or raise in there kids here. I support the police increases. Thanks and you go through a lot and you work really hard and I appreciate the listening. It ain’t say.
Issac Evans Franz – I also appreciate the work you are doing. The resolution from the financial committee (rereads memo asking the selectboard to look at potential staff cuts, however painful, but responsible. ) Was the selectboard provided with a potential list of staff cuts? Second, the finance committee is concerned about a lack of a long term financial plan – was the list provided and could it be shared with the people in the room, and the pro forma FY27 budgets given the implications of this budget. This statement was passed unanimously.
Daniel – the board received that statement. It is a request. The board considered it and decided not to go in that direction. Whether that was politically wise remains to be seen.
Issac – I urge to disapprove the budget.
Degray – procedural question. It’s for the town attorney. We have spoken about this. A budget approval – it is open ended until town meeting votes on it. I’m wondering, why are we voting to approve this budget when in reality you could just put whatever you have there into the booklet to be printed, but could continue to discuss and revise it. There is a misnomer that we have to finish this and get it to the printer. Changes can be made to the budget up until it gets to RTM. Explain it to me.
Fisher – he is correct. You can put it in the report and yes at RTM there can be motions to increase or decrease the budget as the meeting progresses. Obviously, between now and the middle of March, you can continue to discuss it, but you will vote on that initial motion.
Sarah G – John, thanks for what you said and read. I have lived here almost 30 years and have seen a lot of changes and we are in a tough spot right now. I also listen last year to the report on crime and statistics, there were a lot of calls that were noncriminal, but wasn’t that because our police officers decided not to list things as a crime. They were using their discretion and being lenient. And they collaborate to social service groups. Towns need to prioritize essential services…human services isn’t an essential service. I contribute to charities in town after research and I don’t want the town giving my tax dollars going where I may not want it going. I encourage RTM to pass this budget.
Steve – I want to reiterate and have been talking to many people and the concern about how much Brattleboro spends on human services but also the heavy lifting Brattleboro is already doing. It’s becoming too much on the shoulders of people spreading struggling. The last person said towns shouldn’t decide… aren’t human services folks getting elected to RTM then approving their own donations? Not acceptable.
Daniel – there were concerns – ready to make a motion and take a vote?
Liz makes a motion to accept it, with 12.1% increase
Franz – requests a 10 minute recess to think about my vote. I need a few quiet minutes.
Daniel – really? Really? Okay, we’ll take our 10 minute break.
After Franz thinks about it....
Peter – where is Richard.
Daniel – he’s over there. So we are back from our little recess, and there was emotion to approve the budget, and asked if there were any final statements.. ran…
Franz – I’ll be brief – I’ve expressed reservations, but have concluded that it is better for the town if the budget passes than if it doesn’t.
approved 5-0
Daniel – that, is not necessarily the end of it, there is a lot of discussion ahead at us at town meeting. For a full rom on a divided topic, the discussions was really great. Thanks.
Draft Warnings for Annual Town Meeting and Representative Town Meeting – Discuss
Daniel – so, John…
John Potter – to provided feedback on the draft warning and article alternates. Staff put together a memo with several base warnings, and some alternate ideas that came to our attention to give us feedback on this, and we could come back on the 28th to approve.
Daniel – I’d like to talk about the March 4th warning, then the RTM warning, then we will consider the warning alternates. Annual Town Meeting has two articles on it – Article 1 is electing a bunch of people (selectboard and town meeting) it happens every year. The second is a question that got on here by petition – once they get to 5% it goes on the warning. Article 2 is a question from a community petition.
Liz – I have no questions. This is ministerial.
Daniel – so the Town Meeting warning looks good and we might add alternates to it.
Next is annual RTM. 18 articles to do all sorts of ballots – appoint people, raise $$, decide on stipends , human service expenses, town expenses (budget), decide on $850k from unassigned fund balance to pay for police and trash, advice on amount for human services funding amount, and elect trustees to the library, and any other business. All the alternates could come up in Article 18. – So the warning… seems shorter than in recent years.
Franz – suggestion for different language. Article 13… change wording to see if town will advise the human service review committee to use a specific amount for funding. Right now what happens is RTM tells the selctboatd to tell the committee how much to make available for the fiscal year 2 years ahead. RTM is saying what we want to do a year from now.They can tell that to their own committee. It can stay within RTM. No need to tell the selectboatd to please tell the committee to do something. It’s their own committee.
Liz – but we have to put it in the draft budget, so we need to be in the middle of it.
Attny Fisher – RTM formalized the process – for many years they made their recommendations, but we formalized it into the process. that can be changed by RTM and by RTM it can amend up or down the amounts. The reasons the town of Brattleboro does it that way, there are so many organization and separate articles for each one would take too long. Some require organizations to petition. But typically there isn’t along list in a small town. I’d like to look at how we formalized it, but the selctboard has to put in an amount.
Daniel – you aren’t saying the article needs to change, just who gets told.
Franz – it doesn’t need to go to the selectboard to go into the budget. It only needs to say to see if it is a specific amount. RTM determines it. They tell the committee what that should be, but it can all take place within RTM without input from us, other than include the article on the warning.
Liz – we need it to prepare the budget, but the word advise is there. It is advisory. the selectboard prepares the budget.
Daniel – other questions about articles in the draft warning? No? Public?
Kate O’Connor – I have a question about Article 12 – you put this in and we didn’t hear about it during the budget process. Using up to $851k for unassigned fund balance for police and solid waste? FY25 expense (yes) On Sept 17 you voted to spend $650k on downtown safety in FY25. On Nov 12 you took $475k out of the revolving loan fund for solid waste. Explain? It it is important. The suit says we have 10% in the revolving loan fund. If you take this out… are we taking an additional $5650k out of the unassigned fund balance…?
Daniel – John?
John – Patrick?
Patrick Moreland – What is not in that number is the $475k from the revolving loan fund for the carts for solid waste. What is there is the $675 pus and additional increase in solids waste starting this January until this June. The combined total for downtown safety plus additional; increases in solid waste expenditures this year.
Franz – what is the additional spending?
Daniel – new contract – more expensive.
Patrick – our contract ended June 30, so we started the fiscal year with no contract. We have negotiated with Casella. Board said do the contract, but there is a January rate increase and that will happen in FY25 (a portion).
Dick Degray – I’ve been around long enough to remember when we voted by organization for human service funding. The board approved the spending for the downtown safety program, but I’v been here every meeting but you didn’t approve additional spending from the unassigned funds… why didn’t you authorize. You gave them the ability to negotiate, but why didn’t staff come and ask for $250k. You have the authority. Why did the administration usurp the authority.
Moreland – I don’t recall… (screen goes black)
Franz – aren’t we voting on it tonight?
Fisher – only RTM can authorize unassigned fund balance spending. You can serve it up that way and have the article approve it. What happens f it isn’t approved, then you have deficit spent, then how do you cure that deficit. Just because you overspent the general fund doesn’t mean you have a fund deficiency. You aren’t in a deficit situation if you overrun the general budget. RTM, the voters, has the authority to appreciate the fund balance, not the seldctboard.
Franz – have we taken sufficient action to act on both parts of this article? We did authorize additional spending for downtown safety, maybe we sort of did for solid waste? Did we do enough to meet legal obligations?
Fisher – many times we have articles that says shall we appraise from the unassigned fund balance to deport a project… so the answer is yes. One is funding emergency spending, and one is how the bill comes in for solid waste. the two are together in one article to RTM.
Franz – What is it is defeated? We’d go through a cure process, but this is a lot of money. WE’d be in the position of needing to canning things in FY25 to cover that.
Fisher – total fund balance, not the general fund. You won’t be in a total deficit. You will want to be careful.
Franz – unpleasant, but not illegal.
Fisher – you can assess on taxpayers. There are other ways. Refinding ends. Don’t think we’ll… I don’t think we’ll be in that situation.
Richard – so if RTM and Article 12… that just says they don’t want to fund it, not that they don’t like it.
Daniel – you will hear what people think about it.
Liz – get rid of the guy from London.
Daniel – other questions… sometimes we get unwelcome attention. Other questions?
Franz – article 2 is to see approval of an interim town treasurer… isn’t that the finance director. If we hire a finance director, what happens with the town treasurer position ?
Patrick – if we follow the recent example, we waited six months then asked them to be appointed as town treasurer. After some trust is built. WE’d ask the assistant town treasurer do it until then.
Christina – I was wondering about article 12 and if you could separate it into two articles, so we could have the amounts into there. Instead of lumping the two spendings together.
Peter and Liz good the way it is…
Daniel – Richard and Franz say ok, Liz and Pete say no. I say yes. Two articles is fine.
They considering voting. (Liz wants it…)
Franz – Splitting into two means you could defeat one and not the other. So, I’m … any way we do it, it will work out. I don’t really have a preference, but respect the idea of knowing where the funds are coming from. Might be more cumbersome to discuss.
Daniel – two articles is cleaner, less muddy. Debate will be smoother. I think having each is clean.
Liz – it is repetitive.. We just add the numbers in parentheses there we could have one article that would be clear enough.
Richard – I din’t realize we wanted two articles. I just want the info.
Peter – We’re talking about info…
Ray – one of my questions was about the process – just the 18 articles then the alternatives? OK, just wanted to clarify. While it is from the same fund balance, lumping the two together – they are separate projects and separate entities.
Degray – if whatever you do the article is defeated, that doesn’t mean that the safety program is affected. the board gets to decide that. If people vote no… it won’t change what is already in place. The moderator will tell them they don’t have line item authority, and this is a lot of money. The board will decide if this will go forward or have an affect on it. When people run, this could be a good question for candidates for selectboard.
Daniel – the realm of controversy… so these are possible warning alternates. John says he isn’t proposing them. I want to go one at a time. First says.. for the March 4th meeting when you elect people… we have one question one there by petition. Article 3 is potentially – shall Brattleboro advise state legislature that any safe injection site be subject to an affirmative vote by Brattleboro. A petition was started. It didn’t get the required number of signatures. The board can place something on the warning. That is the question.
Liz – the law passed by the legislature allows for safe injection sites. They took out the opt in procedures. The bill suggested Brattleboro would be a the second site. Do we want to make sure we have the vote. The way this is worded is very benign. It just says we want to have our voice heard. We should approve this.
Daniel – I want to speak to process.and caution this board. Every year it is possible to have ballot questions that usually are about things with strong feelings. The practice has been to say get the signatures. We can put it on, but if we do we open ourselves up to future situations, liz and peter, you just set a precedent – trust will be eroded further if you decide which ones you like and don’t like. Jill, just gather signatures and it would be on without controversy.
Franz – this is important and we need our legislators to hear how people in town feel about it. Our delegation was surprised when the local vote was removed. People of town need to vote on this. Entirely appropriate,. Whether for or against you should speak on this.
Peter – I agree – let the community decide. I base a large part of what I said based on conversations I’ve had. I’ve heard from enough people. That’s how my vote is reflected.
Richard – I’d like to se the vote but worried about subverting the process. Not sure where I’ll fall. The board didn’t bring this up. Jill brought it up. Another way to do it would be at the legislative level, but might take along time. The process in the legislature doesn’t smell right to me. The bit removed at the last minute. That is very bad, and more light needs to be shed on it. Bottom line, the community needs to be protected by the vote. I like and no I don’t like the process.
Sen Wendy Harrison – thanks. Here’s what happened. The intent is that towns have choice, but only included Burlington. The city council could approve the grant funding, and that is how it gets approved, which is different from the bill originally. The intent is that the town or city approves an OPC before it happens. It is interesting that the question came about. If the town could get funding and insurance on its own, the legislation could allow it to happen. The intent is consistent.
Daniel – put it on the warning – I think there is a place for the debate, but I don’t think that time is now. This is just advisory to the state legislature. Seems like 4 of you are in favor. I’m not.
Liz – I’d like to amend it to include OPC and SIS included.
Jill ST – no problem with Liz’s suggestion. Bob Fisher gave me the language. I’ve been watching it all along and legislators didn’t really answer your questions, so I talked to many and got different info. I looked to do the petition, but learned more. Town needs to advise the state. Or more, later. I had little time to gather signatures. IT was amazing we got to 52% in one week.
Daniel – there are lots of names for this type of site. I see hands. I need to know what the board thinks about this. Liz wants safe injection site added.
Richard – in context of Jill coming to us to ask for us to put it on. It is a valid process. So I don’t feel bad. We are not subverting the process.
Daniel – right, but it is playing with precedent.
Peter – all this is about precedent. This is what the people in Brattleboro want. No precedent. We are asking do you want this or not?
Liz – one more comment – on Senator harrison –
Daniel – can you wait. language comments?
T Christie – I’ve been a pubic health professional. Overdose prevention site is a different term that safe use site or safe injection site. Injection is a type of drug use. I’d urge you to use the state language and their intent.
Daniel – overdose prevention center regulations speak to injection use but also providing smoking facilities further down the road in Burlington. In Glasgow one opens – a drug consumption room.
Liz – emphasizing Senator Harrison’s statement that it is possible for there to be other safe injection sites in edition to Burlington if an entity came up with money and insurance.
Daniel – from the regulations – they are real. The community engagement required… following the initial engagement, the organization must inform the community and most engage agencies in the area, people with lived experience, law enforcement, emergency medical facilities, hospitals, town officials and employees, community creating providers, health care providers and public transportation. All of that gets summarized in a report to the state before opening… just reading what it says. Schools aren’t on the list.
Craig M – I totally agree that it is an exhaustive list but we have no rights. It is telling that the legislation expects the facility of the CON process. We can’t be an interested party. This process expects them. We can’r choose if a hospital comes to town.. yes we do… a certificate of need. This removes that power.
Daniel – we will put this on the warning…
Abby – It feels really disheartening to be told to participate, come, run for town meeting, join a committee, speak up… and be ignored. It happens again and again. Daniel spoke of the erosion of trust. It is too deep. We followed the process and got our article on the ballot. They didn’t collect the signatures. It is appalling that two health care professionals should vote on this issues- Franz and Richard – if you know how you are going to vote before you vote, why do this.
Tiger Christie – it is easy to think of overdose prevention centers as a wild new approach – it has been used since 2003 – Vancouver. The impacts there were widely studied by outside agencies…
Daniel – plenty of time to educate them…
Tiger – I have been waiting along time – the impacts they found on the community – no increase in new drug use or relapse, increase in addiction services used, no increase in drug related crimes, decrease in vehicle break-ins, fewer syringes and drug litter in public, and also prevented almost 300 deaths which decreased the burden on health professionals, EMS, ambulances,… and all of us who burn out. I would love if people could be open to this as not something being such in, but as a response to asks from our community to decrease drug use and litter.
Daniel – I’ll move us on…
Hank – I understand but..
Daniel – we are going to move on. Next two things we should consider together – these came from a selectboard member – article 4 –
Potter – these are just four a draft that will come back. Some will be included and some will not on the 28th. We can vote if it helps.
Franz – we are deciding tonight if it shows up next week…
vote on whether article 3 be included on the agenda at the jan 29th mtg…
Daniel – let’s have a recess for 5 minutes…
more
Daniel – all in favor 4-1 (daniel no) Just like we thought it would be. Article 4 and 5, potential. Both are about asking the community if the selectboard shall enact ordinances – on – clear boundaries for acceptable behavior, and recoup compensation from property owners that require extra responses.
Franz – I proposed this be in front of us. This is a contentious issue in town with potential serious implications. the board passed these oranges and was overturned by RTM in an appropriate fashion, so no problem with any of that. What do the people of town as a whole think of these questions. The separation is useful. As a single ordinance there was a lot of discussion about the high repose properties and less about clear acceptable behavior. I heard things that made these be separate issues. The second is we collect money from property owen’s, that is really different from the first part about making things better downtown. of these two, I would like to see it on the ballot for March 4 for the first part abut clear behavior but not the second part. I’m in favor of article 4 but against article 5…we can leave it off.
Liz – I think we should mash these two together. Both aspects had more discussion. 4 was wildly misunderstood. 5 has a distinct realm of influence. Both are tools for our town to control the problems we talked about tonight. It gives police and town to open a conversation with a person on the street or landlord to confront problems. They are a set and should be together. It should be advisory.
Peter – I like these as presented. The strain on our first responders and DPW, and other hotels not on the list that are using our services. I’d like to see them stay together and the tax rate, most of the tax rates of hub communities were 9-10% increases and non hubs were 4-5% so I want to see these stay together. It makes sense for it to be one up or down article.
Richard – the other issue is – the vote was taken at RTM and we are revisiting this… are we subverting the process. many in town felt they did’t feel represented when it was voted, but others said the opposite. Are we trashing the RTM vote process. W Do what yo want and we’ll change it when we want.
peter – we aren’t telling RTM anything – RTM is one body, the town is the entire body. What does the entire town want? It is a huge question – plague, chaos – how many people asked me to do sometime about this. People begged us to do something and through a process they went out and got a special RTM. When I looked at the signatures on the petition – people who had complained about downtown issues signed it. This is another mechansinsm. This is saying “final answer” you take it to the town.
Daniel – we are failing to listen if we go down this road. There was a whole process, legal and appropriate. We had a high engagement year and continue tow. There was a split vote, it passed, legally and properly. People felt so strongly that they gather petitions for a special RTM to rescind the decision, at that meeting there was a huge level of engagement. Not only were there huge numbers wanting to be appointed to their districts, and more people stayed even thought hey couldn’t;t vote. It was impressive. The vote at the end said rescind, and so I’m not going to be on this board. I would say that at best, these articles are advisory to the next selectbaord and this is business for the nest selectboard. It sends a message that there was a process and we’re going to do this other thing. Not wise.
Franz – If the real information that we don’t have – what do the people of Brattlenor think of the ordinance. We heard a lot of talk at meetings, and at RTM but have NO WAY to know what people actually think of this. Putting this on as an advisory matter will advise the board what the pope of Brattleboro want. I see know reason to not find out. As for the next selectboard, when will it go on…
Daniel – people of Brattleboro…
Craig – I’ve had time on my hands, looked at RTM elections for the last 15 years and am delighted that more people are running than available seats. It will be a true representative elections. Zero people voting at RTM were elected in competitive elections. It was not a representative elections. No competitive elections for the last three years in any district. You think RTM is representative but that hasn’t been true. Will be in the future.
Abby – at the special RTM – every single person that night was voted in to a contested seat. I agree with Daniel about this. You are a five person selectboard making decisions for the town. You are only 5 people. That’s your job. RTM has a job. We were elected to vote on the ordinance. That’s what we did. If you want to further erode trust in the systems. By this measure every decision you decide should go to a town vote. We collected 450 signatures – plenty said no, 450 did. You talk about public engagement and coming to meetings – lots of people didn’t want the ordinance. Try something else. This is something the town doesn’t want.
Ronnie – with regard to this bit of business, it seems like a lot of the behaviors we are talking about are behaviors are already illegal or are disturbing the peace issues. When I was first aware of this ordinance I was supportive of it but didn’t like what happened at RTM, but thought bout it and maybe we didn’t really need it so maybe it shouldn’t be there at all. That RTM wasn’t a true RTM because it was called because there were activists in town making point about what they thought the ordinance represented and they won their argument but it wasn’t a true RTM – if RTM elects its own that isn’t representative. I’ll come out on the side on the most people weighing oil to decide something so I support the town vote because it is very contentious. After that, I went to another meeting who were extremely passed off at what happened at the special RTM and they felt their voices were on’t heard. many are running for RTM because of what happened at that meeting.
Lisa N – I feel sad about this. What I’ve been seeing is people living in a small place and people are getting engaged. Democracy is uncomfortable. Whoever loses thinks it wasn’t representative. We will keep discussing these issues, but don’t erode the process by having this vote.
Mary – A little backstory – I represent the community that hasn’t participated before. I trusted that the town would do its job but I didn’t realize Act 127 had a 5% tax on our property taxes. I was caught unaware. When we got 14.2 % education increase, plus 22% proposed her, and the crime issues. Sat that meeting there were good citizens who tried to get in, and they weren’t voted in. People left in disgust. Are we the majority or not? We are at this crossroads in town. See what people think.
Rey – It is interesting that you are considering this and that it is controversial. If you add this there are lots of contentious issues to add to the ballot in mMarch. The ordinance – all these different things were named for the proposal approved… it is an opportunity to come up with new proposals. Amend these ideas. See … fighting over the ordinance made sense. If it made sense it would be encacted. take these special votes off the ballot but how do we want to address contentious issues. We should ask the town what we want our money going to. I don’t want the substation – can I ask the town about it. I don’t want tone pigeonholed into a fin tie conversation that doesn’t lead to long term solutions. John Potter painted use s a dystopia hellscape. A lot of people care. People ..
Daniel – thanks. 10 pm is a good ending point…
Lisa – the ordinance that didn’t;t pass, can it still come back and you can make changes without a vote?
Daniel – well said point. And Ray said the same thing. peter and Liz will be here next year… the people running will express an opinion about this ordinance. I don’t know what I got elected years ago. We can revisit it here rather than have an up and down vote.
Peter – I don’t want to investigate this again. Leaving it on the ballot will tell me if I’m in the right direction.
Daniel – you perspective and Liz… if this is useful for you and the three other mystery people. If you want to put it on, knock yourself out.
Peter – well…
Ken – I have tried to be active in the community. Many aren’t. Even if it goes on the ballot you won’t get the full town. I tried for town meeting member and I didn’t get elected and I was against the ordinance.. I think we should move on.
Daniel – board?
Franz – Combining them is not a good idea – the vote will be less clear.
Richard – when we vote – we aren’t voting for or against the ordinance – just on the warning.
Daniel – on the draft for next week. Right. Ready? All in favor of Article 4 and 5 to consider next week. 3-2 Daniel and Richard against.
Daniel – 6 and 7 – hoo boy. Human Services funding. First is should it be reduced for FY26 from 2% to up to 1% ($230,638) – and as guidance for the FY27 budget. Article 7 – should RTM Human Services funding be reduced (no figure).
Liz – I like article 7. Article 7 has no fiscal year and there is a need already the budget includes 2% now, but the selectboard already voted on a cut to 1.4% – so this advisory motion would get the advice from the voters if they would advise RTM to modify this number for the budget. So I suggest we for FY26 be included. Voters can have the discussion at RTM understanding what the will of the voters w=is… it would inform the conversation.
Peter – let’s say to zero, for example, then RTM would establish a number and build it from ground level?
Fisher – these are advisory – if you put them on March 4 there are just advice, so your funding for human services is RTM’s decision. Voters aren’t usurping, they are advising, regardless of fiscal year.
Daniel – there is still a disbelief that RTM is a genuine body made up of the voters of Brattleboro. In the Charter review commission. many years seats have not been competitive. We should investigate if the current form of RTM works for us. The special RTM showed what things could look like with full engagement. These articles for funding human services could fail, and there is a way to ask about what they want to see in future years. people will run to be town meeting members to say they are against or of the budget. Maybe the critique I have of what we currently do – people don’t really campaign. People don’t know what people stand for. That’s limitation. Need to think of redoing trust in government. people are mad at us for a lot of different reasons. WE can joke but it is a problem. We should think about… do we always have to make them a little more mad?
Franz – I’m struck we’re just talking about the same thing – do we want to know what the people of town think… we could hire a public opinion firm to get everyone’s opinion, but this is our best way to find out. Then it can be used. I can’t see what that isn’t helpful tot he process. If you vote against this you don’t care what the people think.
Daniel – no – the elected people of RTM – need to abide by their decision.
Franz – RTM needs to abide n=but they don’t know what the people think.
Liz – this is another form of democracy open to us. RTM has the authority to identify the human services amount. So, informing RTM of what the public wants is just another form of democracy that we should employ.
Peter – I was an RTM member when it went o 1.4 to 2% and was in favor. I’m not making a decision in vacuum. I’ve spoken with people. People are asking why we are contributing so much when other communities don’t give this much. We are asking what they want and that’s a bad thing? I don’t understand. We should bring everything to a town vote? I understand that. I don’t want to make this decision in a vacuum. Let the voter decide. We know what it would mean to town taxes – down 3%. Something to think about. I’m saying that I do not feel comfortable based on my conversation on pulling the trigger on this but put it on the ballot so the voters can tell RTM to eliminate or keep it.
Richard – I like clean language of number 7.
Liz – with my amendments… for FY26.
Steve – ??
Jane – I’m in favor of putting this to the town. Anyone who thinks that everyone would go to the town, don’t threaten me with a a good time. Sir, you are rude and dismissive (Daniel ) you speak for the majority of the meeting. people are frustrated that they can’t talk. You like to monologue. Give me as much as I can to vote at the polls.
Tom Franks – my opinions have been published. My professional perspective – Article 7 gives you minimal information. Change it to eliminate rather than reduce. That would give you useful information.
Steve – first, interesting that Tom mentioned the wording. Article 7 that caught my eye as well. I have hundreds of scientific articles to my name. Reduce would be worst. People don’t have context about mints. Article 7 is useless. I like the other articles. The coordinators of the signature drive to overthrow the ordinance admitted they didn’t know what it meant. If the signature collectors didn’t know, how would the signers know. It absolutely has to be brought back. In the meeting where we voted, the legal particularities were 80% of the discussion. In my view 0 yes keep it or go back to the drawing board. The mandate was to shut it down. The mandate wa let’s not get sued. Those are the main things. The same pope lobbying against this want to try other things, haven’t they been tried already… we have to consider that as well. That didn’t do anything to reduce violent crime…
Daniel – thanks. Other members?
Ronny – there was discussion about a public vote and RTM… something about voting campaigning for RTM so people know what they stand for. RTM is dysfunctional in that regard. Even if someone is elected, there is no accountability for how they voted. No way of knowing what they do. I see no argument that RYM is better at deciding these things than the general pubic.
Degray – precedent is a word used to stop something. I’ve had issues with the human services committee – it will set a precedent. each time it comes up means you can vote any way, not the same way every time. If people want to know about the bust and the human service discussion – it will take twice as long as a 20 million budget. If you support the action of what happens in the budget and human services – both should be take to a town wide vote. 50 RTM members could sign a petition. They could approve your actions. The vote after RTM could give a ten fact of what is going on with voters of the community with the budget.
Jill – was the town charter going to be on the ballot?
Daniel – they decided they didn’t want to…
Kate O’Connor – we did come asking if we could put it on the ballot – do you like RTM or Open Town meeting, and then australian ballot – it was too confusing to get the information we wanted, so we didn’t want ti on the ballot, so we’ll do public information sessions and reach out. Didn’t want something on the ballot that will confuse everything.
Daniel – Article 6 or 7…
Liz – in light of zoom comments – article 6 gave us more information – John do you have a preference to give town the most info?
Potter – article 6 give more information – whether you want that is up to you
Liz – it might be wise to just say it is $461k presently, in article 7. Also, let’s recognize the efforts of the human services committee.
Daniel – article 6, 7 or nothing?
Liz – number 7 – “shall voters advise RTM to reduce human services funding for FY26 presently at $461k….”
Daniel – hard to make good decision at this time of night. Can I propose that it say it is its current amount. ready to vote on placing article 7 as amended to be talked about next week on our list?
Avery – ember of Human Services Committee – noticing what you are saying – You are cutting out that it is 2% of the budget. It was important at RTM, and now you will put it on the ballot. Please include how much of the ballot it is…it is 2% of a large budget, not a random number.
Daniel – 2% of the previously adopted budget. There is a friendly amendment there…. (reads and adapts it…) want that on the warning to consider next week.. 4-1 Daniel against.
Goodnight.