We’ll be doing a live blog here of the special Representative Town Meeting, in which the revised FY15 budget is presented for reconsideration. With the fiscal year looming, it is likely to pass, but how it passes may be another matter. Occasional updates coming throughout the meeting…
Comments | 14
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Getting started
The crowd assembles. At 6:01 p.m., with about 50 people in the hall, there are still many empty seats, but people are filing in and being social. It may be a while before they come to order and get down to business.
By about 5 after the hour they appear to be reaching quorum. More representatives file in and take seats. They are given a one minute warning.
Lawrin Crispe, Town Moderator, calls the meeting to order. 78 are need for a quorum, and 94 currently present.
He gives the rules.Voting shall be by standing/raising hand, or by division, or by roll call vote. No rep shall speak more than twice on the same issue without town meeting permission, and you must wait until everyone speaks once before going twice. Limit remarks to be courteous. Articles must be warned, so no other business. Debate is confined to the merits of the question.
Yields to Mr. Gartenstein for an announcement.
Gartenstein – A personnel related matter. Police Chief Wrinn is retiring June 27. He’s been with the department for 28 years, and we thank him for his work for the town.
Much applause.
Early business
Kate O’Connor – Can Fisher and Moreland join the meeting?
Daims – does not favor procedure of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Moreland when seated at the panel with the Selectboard, they hog the microphone, Mr. Fisher speaks out of turn, calls for your attention, and address the crowd directly without being recognized. We should not allow this routine suspension of the rules.
Fisher and Moreland can join the meeting.
David Schoales – move that electronic media stay in reserved section. They may.
The business business
How much to raise, expend for town expenses for FY15 is the question. Gartenstein presents the revised budget for approval. $15,666,866.
He speaks to the motion. March 22 a budget was adopted for $16m or so. A petition called for a referendum. The budget was overturned. The Selectboard had a series of meetings to go back through and bring back a budget. We looked at broad potential changes that included delay and removing interest payment for next $9m for police-fire facilities. Other structural changes, to, to personnel and services. Many meetings, and we heard many people opposed to cuts to services We took a different approach, and requested 1% cuts across the board. We went through the proposed cuts and we have adopted a series of cuts.
Removed interest paid on $9m bond, cut 50k for sidewalk improvements, one police cruiser, plus various 1% cuts: land records, town report, legal notices and postage, library cuts, fire department personnel changes, police department animal control position reduction, propane and cemetery maintenance.
Any additional cuts would result in cuts of staff positions, is his view. Other cuts couldn’t be agreed to, such as salary cuts to Listers, line striping and radar equipment from Public Works, central dispatch cuts, he said.
We continued by discussing taking from the undesignated reserve fund, got good news from Finance Director showing $200,000 surplus. It comes from us taxing ourselves this year for the police fire bond. We decided to leave the surplus where it is and use $200k to defer costs. That gets us to the number in the motion.
Prudence McKinney – The sidewalk money? Was the $50k cut intended for the sidewalks or is it a reduction?
Gartenstein – we approve a certain amount, and look at needs.
Steve Barrett – that is a cut in the replacement of sidewalks. Last year we didn’t do one but could have been done this spring. We’d deferring that work.
McKinney – I speak in opposition to cutting sidewalk funds.
John Wilmerding – cuts include interest cuts – what administrative guidance has been given to the Police Fire committee?
Gartenstein – significant decision need to be made, but don’t have answers yet. We deferred borrowing the $9 m, and have asked committee to look at alternatives, and we anticipate taking up what will happen to the renovation work going forward.
Crispe – discussion of Police Fire project plans will be out of order, then, going forward.
Judy Davidson – sidewalks – will there be money to do some sidewalk repairs and how much will that be?
Barrett – there is $50k still for improvements, plus a grant to do the east side of Main Street, plus $10k for repairs. There will be some work done this year.
Hyam Siegel – a math question. I see $20k more than what is in the article.
John O’Connor – It’s a $200k difference – the amount taken from the undesignated reserve.
Siegel – I get it, but it has to be $200,000 less, the budget reduction sheet shows 15,881,000 would then be 15,681,000…I think there is a 20k error.
John O’Connor – I’ll look at that.
Kurt Daims – I object to opinion of moderator that Police Fire project has no place in this discussion. If that were a term of the agenda it should have been in the warning. It bears on the budget – the interest removed, and monies assigned to the project – so, I object. It’s improper to restrict the discussion that way.
Crispe – Certainly the $4m part included in the budget can be discussed, but the actual project is out of order because it has been removed from the budget so that the Selectboard can continue their deliberations. The Charter provides that no cap expenses can be made without prior consideration of Selectboard, so they haven’t finished yet, so it isn’t germane. You can appeal the decision, but that’s my reading of the rules.
Daims – the remaining portion can be discussed?
BCTV’s sound just dropped out, so I’ll post this.
More
Tom Finnell – is talking about how most houses on Elliot are apartments. Older people own them, he says. They are retired.
And BCTV sound dropped out again.
Finnell- in his 80’s he has to go get another job. We need to scrape the barrel more to keep property taxes from rising. We need to look closely to keep tax rises to a minimum. To benefit the considerable number of people, this budget can’t pass.
Mary Cain – questions- if we don’t have a town manager, is that salary on the budget, and if we haven’t had an animal control officer, and Chief Wrinn’s salary, and how salaries are hidden in departments. Could you address those issues. Wouldn’t it be different next year because the numbers wouldn’t add up?
Gartenstein – in planning, we include salary for all personnel we expect to be working throughout the year – Police Chief, animal control at 30 hours, Town manager, etc. They are all in the budget. Some positions haven’t been fully filled this year. Interim Town Manager and animal control were some savings we anticipate at the end of this year.
Mary Cain – How do you calculate overtime? Can you prevent overtime, except disasters?
Gartenstein – Town’s have projects at all hours. We try to minimize overtime. The budget shows best estimates based upon previous years.
Cain – I suggest this budget not be passed.
Peter Falion – any attention paid to developing multi-year busiest, so we can anticipate financial liabilities?
Gartenstein – it has been discussed. The capital plan is an example of a multiyear plan disregarded each year. It is possible to do it, but not the way budgeting has ever been done in town.
Falion – I believe we have a structural budget problem, and have had it for years. Dart Everett once said property owners are shouldering the town’s budget, and our commercial side isn’t developing at a robust rate. The town should engage the Chamber, Dev Corp, SeVeds, to help us that way. Until we develop more commercial cash we’ll be in this situation.
Tad Montgomery – The municipal building compliance repairs in this budget?
Kate O’Connor – no.
Montgomery – does the work need to be done by the end of FY15?
O’Connor – no, but getting a plan in place.
Judy Grover – if we spent all the money on feasibility studies, we could have paid for it by now. This town plans a project, then the Selectboard changes, and new priorities emerge. We need to complete projects. The library has a third floor for a police station. They must think we are all against them. The Selectmen cannot complete a project.
Daims – I move that we authorize the Selectboard to redirect funds from the police fire project, to pay bonds and notes, to reduce budget to $14m… The planning could stay in place, the budget intact, and the money would be lowered by $1.8 m.
Crispe – I need a copy of the motion amendment, and it will need a second.
Some clarification.
More more
Crispe rereads the motion – taking bonds and unassigned fund to reduce budget by $1.8 million. You have a couple of concepts here. The first is to redirect funds from the police fire bonds for $1.3m – I have to rule out of order. It is not germane to the motion, it hasn’t been warned, and raises a subject matter not part of the warning for members and public to consider today. I also have a concern whether we could legally do that, so I’d like to refer to Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Phillips – we have a motion on the floor. No motion to amend anything. I din’t hear amen in anything he or you said.
Crispe – move to authorize – I’d take your point but will take that as a request to amend the budget.
Mr. Phillips – that part I didn’t here.
Daims – what do I say to keep this going?
Crispe – Amend.
Daims – Amend then. I’ve spoken to lots of lawyers.
Fisher – Unexpended bond proceeds can be used to enhance a project, or go back to voters at warned meeting to get approval to spend on another capital plan.
Daims – It’s paying of debt service of a capital expense. It’s a normal procedure.
Fisher- debt service different than the project itself.
Crispe – Not properly warned, not germane. Out of order, but you have a second piece, to direct $500k of unassigned fund balance.
Daims – I ask for an override – an appeal of the Chair’s decision of out of orderness.
Tom Franks – I usually like to get legal advice from those in front of me. I strongly oppose this motion. We have a process to warn substantive articles. We have no sense of what the population wants. The attorney says no. It isn’t good fiscal process.
Andy Davis – From my common sense. I support the decision to not get into this. It’s a way to abandon a project without properly warning it. Both bonds have been approved, and the Selectboard has been honest about it being a priority. This seems like a sideshow to short-circuit the work that’s been done on a much needed project.
(applause)
Lynn Russell – Thanks board, though we have disagreed. I appreciate your diligence and hard work. At the same time, D1 oppose a budget of this size because we can’t afford it. They want the same in FY15 as in FY15. It sounds to me that those funds somewhere in other places that could be used to reduce the budget would bring it back to a livable number. I appeal that reps think of those with less financial resources being asked to carry the burden. Mr. Daims did research the feasibility by contacting state bondsman and other people. I encourage supporting his research and overriding your decision.
Paula Melton – explanation from SB for moving forward?
Crispe – not germane.
Melton – Point of information, then. will there be further opportunities for citizen involvement?
Gartenstein – yes
Meima – if appeal is sustained, does it put the motion back on the floor?
Crispe – question will be on sustaining rule of the chair – that the motion is out of order. You need 50%.
Wilmerding – I believe the moderator’s decision is correct. No doubt that this is a major expenditure and deserves a hearing of its own.
Pal Borofsky calls question. A division is requested on suspending debate. They rise and are counted. Most want to cease debate. 104-18. Debate ceases.
Reps vote that the Chair’s ruling stands, and Daims’ motion to amend was out of order.
More more more
Crispe – now, the original motion on the budget…
Moreland – Can I respond to Mr. Siegel’s question about budget numbers. I brought a computer. I’ll try to help answer the question, and refer to your sheet.
Daims – Point of order – shouldn’t the discussion return to the unreserved fund request?
Crispe – If you make that motion.
Moreland – FY15 budget increase sheet, lower half. Left hand side shows previous figure of $16m+. Siegel is correct that if you subtract from the original budget you don’t get the number. The $602,759 is the reduced tax levy, which gets to a new tax levy. That allows you to show the tax implications for different house values.
Siegel – Why would that end up with a different tax levy – why aren’t budget and tax levy the same?
Moreland – Different because revenue for town is more than just tax revenue. The budget and the motion are different because expenses passed at RTM in March separate from the budget (SB salaries, BaBB)
(applause for getting through it)
Crispe reads the motion again.
Daims – I move that we… let’s pause. The budget we have now is not a significant reduction from a couple months ago. $16m to around $16m. The people voted against police-fire and increased expenses. The budget is going up again. This doesn’t express the concerns of the people voting on the referendum. People will be disappointed. The only way is to come up with something new, like what we can’t talk about, or use more unassigned fund balance we use for emergencies.
Sharry Manning – I haven’t heard another motion, and Daims has talked for over 2 minutes.
Daims – One minute more (grumble). The budget hasn’t been reduced. We have an obligation to reduce it significantly, so I move we transfer $900,000 from the unassigned reserve fund. The public would be marginally happy.
Fisher – use the word appropriate rather than transfer.
The amendment gets a second.
Ben Underhill – is the $900k in addition to $200k already?
Daims – an additional $700k. Total would be $900k.
Fisher – the unassigned fund balance, not undesignated. Keeping terms straight.
Billie Stark – it’s an expense budget. Moving the money may impact the tax rate, but does nothing for the budget. Next year we’ll be in worse shape. Reduce the budget by reducing budget expenses. (applause).
Wilmerding – Rep Finance Committee has met debating a policy of a minimum balance in the reserve fund. Our studies showed that 10% is goo to keep on hand. It helped during Irene. We recommended a policy, but it became a suggestion. To spend it down to 5% now, that flies in the face of a lot of hard work we did.
Jill Stahl-Tyler – When we had rain and it washed out a road, and we have more to fix at the Municipal Building – what can happen with one snowstorm?
Gartenstein – $92k to repair Elm St. $57,500 to move communications equipment, and $450k for Municipal Center.
Don Webster – No one in district 1 supports this budget? I know some that do. Many people want a modest budget. This is a 2.8% increase, and a responsible budget. (applause)
Tom Finnell – Earlier I spoke on behalf of lesser landlords concerned about keeping their homes, so I support this.
Meima – When proposed budget tax increase of 2.8% – is that one layer of other tax increases? Some state fees or taxes passed through? Increase in water and sewer? What does the whole stack look like, and what’s the total cost?
Urffer – not germane to amendment now, but after?
Crispe – Yes, but he’s posed the question.
Moreland – Increase is 2.87% plus school portion about 7 cents (10.25 cent increase total). Utility rates for ratepayers is 2% on water and 6% on wastewater.
Melton – Can we do anything about the loud fan?
Crispe – We will check. Debate on Daims motion?
Lynn Russell – I agree with Billie Stark, but reducing it this year allows the board a year to restructure. I encourage to vote yes on the amendment. Vote with people of lesser means in mind. Over 60% of town.
Crispe – we can shut off the fan, but we’d have no air. Might be a good idea. (Much laughter.)
Schoales – Town elementary schools is 1 percent, state property tax is 4 cents.
Orion Barber – I don’t like the idea of pulling that much from the reserve fund, what would it leave?
Moreland – we would leave $800k in unassigned fund balance.
Barber – I’m going to vote against this.
Jim Verzino – calls the question.
Reps are counted; debate ceases. The Daims amendment to take $700k additionally.
The motion fails. Back to the original motion on the budget.
Jane Southworth – I’m going to vote for the revised budget. Of those I talked to, 90% feel progress has been made. Further reductions and further reductions – we reps should be at school meetings. People don’t feel represented – I hope we all attend more budget meetings and talk to more voters. (light applause).
Mary Cain – I listen to the people more than others do. 110 houses on the market now. I thought I could afford to live here for the rest of my life, but it isn’t. Expect realtors and moving companies to be happy if this passes. Are we ready? I predicted the Austine school would have problems. I predict we have a problem with spending. You, too, may have to list your house and move elsewhere.
Lissa Weinmann – revenue generation. Some think we’re on an upswing; others see a decline. Can we tap into those who are doing better – so those can elect to pay more or earmark donations, or an optional sales tax to support – has this been explored. I appreciate the work that was done. We do need the Police Fire facility.
Schoales – we have discussed voluntary taxes and donations, Eli Gould and Chris Chapman are exploring it.
Slowinski – I supported March budget. If we put off projects, it will get more expensive, right?
Schoales – Yes. And when things get cut or reduced, lower quality lasts less time. All-new works better.
Steve Phillips – I support this budget. Having said that, the rate of increase is still unacceptably high. Our budget is up 6.4%. Not sustainable. Tax rate is 2.8%.
Gartensetin – FY14 budget used for comparison does not account for $765k spent last year from reserve fund. This year we have less. There is a steady increase in the budget.
Wilmerding – We have looked into this as your Finance Committee – a level funded budget would be a reduction of services. health insurance will always increase. Certain expenses are out of our control.
Daims – I request a roll call. People will want to know how people vote.
Schoales – I wonder if a division will serve the same purpose.
Crispe – roll call requires 6.
Daims – public would like a roll call.
Crispe – we have six members. We will have a roll call.
(I’m not going to type this, but it will be a public record that we’ll get for you soon.)
And the winner is...
In the end, 112 Town Meeting Representatives voted in favor of the revised budget as presented by the Selectboard and without amendment. 12 voted no.
(applause)
Daims – Recount! Just kidding
(laughter)
Crispe – Other business. We have a function within town meeting, the Finance Committee – we still need volunteers. Not necessarily representatives. If the general public is interested, contact me at crispe@sover.net
Spoon Agave – Many have a sheet from the back table. A motion to establish an ad hoc committee to bring forth a proposal for a Future’s Commission. The ad hoc committee will create goals and propose bylaws, and report back at Representative Town Meeting 2015. Apply to and appoint by Town Moderator.
Agave – I’ve provided my thoughts and a more professionally written description of what such a commission could do. The point is that we have enormously complex problems in the town. The last few months points to it. Economic strife, and the future is uncertain. There are questions about whether our town structure is adequate. Our charter was written in 1959, and the world looked different. There are questions about schools, climate change, jobs – enormously complex questions and thought, reading, and discussion. There isn’t a place in town that can address those questions. We have a town plan, but it is a land use planning document. It doesn’t address larger issues. It’s more than what we can ask of the Selectboard. I don’t think the town can hire a firm full of experts to help us, and there’s lots to be said for us doing this ourselves. A large nutshell. Try to distinguish – I had advice to go for the committee and I thought it over, but I feel like the commission has a lot of questions to answer – how long to last, etc. – I can’t answer those, and we should set up the body we want as we want it to look. I can;t answer what it will look like, this is just an ad hoc committee for creating that commission.
Wilmerding. I strongly support this. I worked with him on the Finance Committee. We had to look at larger issues, like renewable energy. I think Agave will help convene that committee.
Kathryn Turnas – I support Spoon in this endeavor. We have a community that has diversified skills – we don’t have to go outside and we don’t need another feasibility study. This would give us greater insight.
Peter Falion – I support it wholeheartedly. Like I said earlier, we need many more people around the table, figuratively speaking. This would bring other key players and voices. We know who they are. We don’t hear those points of view enough. The commission could be a forum for an important narrative we have going forward.
Tom Finnell – I see people leaving the room and hear no opposition. I call the question.
Debate ceases.
The ad hoc committee to bring for establishing a Futures Commission is established, right now, almost unanimously.
Chuck Cummings – Alluded by a speaker tonight that Austine is closing because of lack of town support. It is not fact. I’d hate for it to go out of the room as fact. (applause).
The meeting adjourns at 8:25 pm
Thanks
Once again, thanks for covering this blow by blow, Chris. I don’t think there were any surprises.
referendum
Lets hope that the RTM members put this out for a public vote as well so we can truly see if residents are satisfied with token cuts after a scare tactic that will still see our property tax rate clearing 3% shortly.
Journalism
That was great, Chris. Excellent work.
The future ain't what it used to be.
Spoon’s futures commission could serve as a pilot program for every town in the state. Selectboards have goals, but by their nature they’re short-term, and even if their goal setting process is done in public, it’s not part of a public-driven process.
The futures commission could give the public an opportunity to set specific and broad goals, suggest strategies to achieve them, and pose solutions for problems that are developing. A good idea that every town should consider.
REFERENDUM
eshmitt,
REFERENDUM
REFERENDUM
REFERENDUM
REFERENDUM
REFERENDUM
Is that all any one can say ? I doubt there will be any referendum by the reps. They are, as one person put it, in group-think mode. But a referendum can also be initiated by the regular voters of the town, and anyone can help. CONTACT BrattleboroCommonSense@gmail.com
CONTACT BrattleboroCommonSense@gmail.com
CONTACT BrattleboroCommonSense@gmail.com
CONTACT BrattleboroCommonSense@gmail.com
CONTACT BrattleboroCommonSense@gmail.com Signatures will be collected at Gallery Walk this evening and starting early at Heifer Stroll.
Group think mode?
“They [RTM] are, as one person put it, in group-think mode.”
I suppose the minority can always accuse the majority of being in a “group think” mode. The true test of democracy is the way minority views are listened to and even incorporated in the decision making process.
I think the RTM worked well in this regard. Many of us signed the RTM petition for the referendum on the budget because of a wide spread desire to question the town budget increases this year. That desire to reach out for town participation does not sound like “group think.”
The recently passed budget represents a a decreased level of planned spending that reflects the townspeople’s desire to not cut services in the coming year. This budget also puts the brakes on a widely supported – and much needed – town project: the police and fire upgrades.
To call this difficult set of RTM decisions that has left the town struggling with how to proceed “group think” is to ignore the compromises that have been made. The work is ongoing. The answers are not easy. The responsibilities that the town has for providing a basic level of services includes the level of fire and police infrastructure. If we believe in the future of Brattleboro we need to solve this challenging problem.
There are always a variety of voices – but you’ve got to listen to them in order to hear them. “Group think” is a meaningless charge.
Group think mode
Hello, ADAvis.
For many at the last RTM the decision and their comments were about unity and cohesiveness, especially after the meeting. My friend’s comment about group-think is not just about any majority, but precisely those to whom the majority itself is the main value.