A divided Brattleboro Selectboard voted in favor of expanding an ordinance of acceptable behavior that criminalizes aspects of life for those who may be unhoused. The decision came despite pleas to have professionals review the changes.
The board then added hundreds of thousands of dollars to this year’s budget to fund additional downtown policing. They estimate $200 a year increases for most taxpayers to cover this expense. It was cheered on by a pro-policing faction that wanted big sticks and ass kicking, and criticized by those who were watching all their work for alternative community safety options go down the drain.
Finally, the board praised Turning Point for exceptional work with addiction and recovery, on a budget less than the annual cost of the new police expansion.
Preliminaries
They start 12 minutes early to make up for other late starts.
Just kidding. They start late again. Over 60 people online…
Chair Daniel Quipp – It is nice to see you all here, thanks for coming. I appreciate the participation. There is a sign in sheet to help with the historical record. We do have time limits on speaker – loose-ish but about 3 minutes. We have these to allow as many as possible to participate and some even of equity. You need to be recognized – raise your hand and I’ll do my best to keep track. In terms of decorum – we will keep this meeting civil and respectful. Whomever is speaking we will listen to them, whatever they say shouldn’t get applause or booing. It will keep things calm. The official term is a limited public forum. This is our meeting and it takes place in public. We need to hear from people but we also need to take action on agenda items tonight. Who gets to speak and in what order – we will try to have everyone be heard. If you want to speak a second time be mindful of others who want to speak. I’d like to balance viewpoints. If someone said what you want to say, leave space for another viewpoint. I’ll remind people of some of these points.
Town Manager John Potter – I was invited to a press conference in Montpelier about motel programs ending this and next week. My intention is to convey your concerns about municipal revenue enhancement. The demotion of Sportsman’s Lounge is delayed until asbestos is removed. Ballots are being mailed to all registered voters. Don’t need to request one. If you don’t get it by Oct 7, call the Town Clerk. For other elections, request an absentee ballot. The Human Services funding application will be out tomorrow. Some people are not aware they can get selectboard agendas emailed to them, so contact the Town Manager’s Office.
Franz Reichsman – two items. First comes from the Charter Review Commission – we’d like everyone to know that there will be RTM discussions coming up – to decide if we will recommend any changes – Oct 10-and 17. Look on town web site. Other item is that I am available to talk with the public. I’m no longer going to be at the Works. Now at the Library. So much interest in many issues and requests for extra time to discuss it, if people want to come, I need a bigger place for my special meetings.
Public Participation (75 people online now)
Ken – I live across the old sportsman’s lounge. If I sit out, I can watch 8-10 drug deals.
Daniel – is this about public safety?
Ken – the homeless are camping out and throwing trash over the encampment. It’s a shitty dump down there. It will end up in the waterways.
Daniel – we have an agenda item later about this.
Ken – nothing is getting done about it.
Consent Agenda
A. Municipal Energy Resilience Program Grant Application for Gibson Aiken Energy and Resiliency Improvements – Authorize $500,000 Grant Application
B. Broad Brook Wastewater Pump Repair – Ratify $35,174.20 Repair
C. Brattleboro Halloween Parade Permit Application – Approve
D. Hazard Mitigation Grant Applications – Approve
So consented!
Acceptable Community Conduct Ordinance, Chapter 13 – Second Reading
Daniel – we have a second reading tonight. John…
John Potter – this is part of the board’s public safety work – you have about 13 initiatives – there are state actions, downtown reforms, messaging, police data project, safety fair… the safety zones ordinance was a priority that the board gave us for the year so this addresses your priority from the retreat. This has been talked about at 4 meetings so far. At the last meeting there was feedback on the draft. It sets out community standards and fines for violations of standards. There were several specific prohibited behaviors and discussion of a 200 foot radius around youth oriented properties. Backup materials show this on maps. Since that meeting staff has worked with the town attorney to address concerns. In total, we made 15 major changes to the first reading – you can see strikeouts in the backup materials. Things like – terminology consistency, definitions, clarifications, solicitation was removed, cannabis exceptions, refinement of defining intoxication, smoking or vaping was removed, leaving personal belongings unattended was removed. Clarified municipal ticket appeal process. Nuisance properties is now high response properties. Four responses in a year was too low so we propose it be 4 over a 3 month period, or 12 times a year. Also, police responses called by landlord wouldn’t count, nor domestic violence calls. Have an off ramp for property owners if there was a legit reason for police being called. Also, original intent of meetings with high response property owners – get a conversation going before fines, etc. This second draft will accomplish a number of policy goals – improving downtown and neighborhoods, new tools for healthy boundaries around town. It is about harm reduction and a request from many people and I can answer any questions.
Daniel – thanks (86 online and big crowd in room again). The board will consider this then we will hear from the public.
Liz – the most important part that.. I just want to say this is part of a set of issues that the board and town have devised to address issues downtown. We need to give all these a chance to work and to work together. I’ve heard a lot of comments about what this does and doesn’t do… but part says there is an opportunity and reasonable amount of time to address underlying conduct. People need to understand… the underlying purpose is to give people to address their own conduct and change their conduct before fines or waivers. Parts of that process is to work with these individuals to see if there is a social service that can help them. So fines are for people who remain uncooperative.
Richard Davis – I appreciate the effort that has gone into this. It is a reaction to people’s concerns in the community. In my mind is will it work or not work? I look at this from as many perspectives as I can. Our community is diverse. There has been a lot of public discussion and it has been helpful to hear what people say about this ordinance. I want to inform my decision based on 45 years in the human service area, in this community. I’ve never been homeless, but I do have a pretty good sense about how this might play out if this was in effect. To a large degree, I feel.. I’ve been going back and forth – will this really make a difference, are we marginalizing part of the population? These questions are floating around. I think what the police have done in the last few weeks – they have been more visible, areas being cleaned up, we have 5 new recruits as [part of the plan. I feel that this… I’d rather put this ordinance on hold. I don’t want to rash it, but I’d like to see the police be given a reasonable amount of time to see what they are doing. All these pieces don’t need to be thrown out at the same time. We might regret doing too much at one time. And if we do it all at one time, we won’t know what was effective. I can’t not for this to be operationalized right now. I want the police and community to see if there is a change in people’s perceptions of safety or numbers of incidents. In good conscience, I can’t vote for this right now.
Peter case – I push against everything you just said. No one wants to criminalize poverty or being homeless. We are going after behaviors, kicking the can does not help this situation. We won’t gain ground by waiting to see what works. If there is a fire, the entire house needs a fire. I have had over 500 conversations on this issue – I wish more of those people would show up. We aren’t trying to demonize anyone. It is making retailer feel unsafe. Whether it is founded or unfounded, the problem is here and is happening right now. Deferring it, which we tend to do, is not helpful and won’t improve things. Another 6 months of conversations mean we will be right back here talking about this again. I will help anyone who wants to be helped. Sometimes you need a kick in the ass to get moving. Deferring and delaying won’t change the situation. We need to do this hard and adult things and roll it all out.
Daniel – no applause or boo – just listen.
Franz – I’ll repeat some things I’ve said before. I have a 3 prong approach – we need adequate social services for the town, we need a shared understanding about acceptable behavior in this town and the third is when the understanding breaks down, we do need compassionate and effective law enforcement. You can’t do whatever you want in this town. It is called law enforcement. I’d also point out that this is both and, not eight or. We don’t have to choose between two – we can show compassion and enforce actions – adequate social services and law enforcement can both exist. You can have both. I’d ask those that don’t support it – have you read it? It has lots of paths without punishment. It contains the off-ramps – there are ways to correct things without fines or restrictions. It’s built in again and again. There has been talk of us vs them. I don’t see it. You can look at it that way. It is a community discussion and everyone is in it together. This doesn’t create divisiveness. One thing – one criticism that is misplaced is that certain segments are incapable of adhering to acceptable standards of behavior, due to poverty or past events – the idea that people are incapable of change is condescending or infantilizing. Asking more of people helps. People want to do better. If we deliver the message, people will go along with the improved outlook. One thing I am hesitant. Several people sent in comments who are very involved in delivering services to elements in town that need services. A few of those people said this is going too fast. People involved have not had an adequate chance to weigh in and see how it works in practice. I’d like to hear more from people dealing with this day to day. I’d feel uncomfortable approving this tonight, but could not in favor in a few weeks in we hear from people who say what they think as well. I like it, but am willing to wait to hear more from service providers.
Daniel – I’m getting into the weeds – first, page 73, section 2. One of the locations described is to encourage a setting of the handling of money without fear of theft or assault. Can someone describe what that means?
Bob Fisher – assault – is attempt to cause bodily injury or fear of imminent bodily injury. Courts still allow that the fear of the serious bodily injury, even if it is a bluff. That is an assault.
Daniel – on page 74, prohibited behaviors – Class A ones should concern anyone – violence and unsavory things. Class B behaviors – #3 urination and defecation. We don’t want to see this out in public, but we have insufficient resources for people to do those things in private. The board needs to come back to public bathrooms on a future agenda. We did have a proposal that didn’t pass last year. #5 is interfering with passage of people on a path, street, etc. This piece could be something that targets people without shelter. I’d like it removed. Penalties – I want to clarify this – so, if somebody was publicly intoxicated, confronted by an authority and asked to move, and if the person said no they could be ticketed? with a potential fine of $50? and would be issued a trespass notice? Okay – they have the conversation, don’t change their behavior – it could be a ticket with a fine or no trespass?
Potter – probably No Trespass first, then if not receptive to restoration, then it could go to a fine.
Daniel – so the way to resolve this is to participate in restoration, and a restorative justice process. I’d like to make that entering into/completing. If someone has entered into a process that should be seen as effort on their part. Going back to page 77, item c. This is where a civil ticket violation…once the notice against trespass has been issued, if someone violates it, it could become criminal?
Bob F – it could be criminal if they violate the notice against trespass. If it is a misdemeanor it is a short prison sentence or fine. Most people don’t see prison terms. usually fines or probation.
Daniel – High Response Properties – this was changed substantially – from 4 call a year to 4 calls in 3 months. There are some sites where staff need to call police on a regular basis – the hospital, Groundworks. The person is neither the property owner or the landlord. They should not be penalized. Staff person?
Liz – Institutional…?
Potter – someone the property owner employs…
Daniel – I do wonder about the potential for landlord retaliation in rental properties. I have experienced people getting eviction notice for nonpayment of rent, and eviction notices after paying that rent. I am concerned about retaliation in that way. Then on page 80 section e – these are the penalties – if a property has X many calls and they fail to enter into a collaborative management agreement, they can be on the hook forum to $800 a violation? A violation would be 4 calls in 3 months and the owner doesn’t resolve it with an agreement.
Potter – correct – for those 4 responses and any additional ones.
Bob F- just for additional ones, for subsequent responses. They get notified, then if they do more the penalty can be imposed. They can pay 2/3 to pay a lower amount.
Liz – I would advocate that this isn’t something we need further delay. We need the context of what is going on with the motel program. We need to give our police department all the tools they need to establish order now, there will be more people living on the streets in coming weeks due to the motel program ending. I hope that people get the services they need, but just in case, police need all the tools in their toolbox, to help people with carrots and a flexible stick.
Daniel – public! (99 people online right now, 3 minutes each… that means…)
Eva – You got my emails, but this petition was signed by over 435 people. WE are responding to proposals about town safety and this ordinance. There is speed in these decisions and are in response from a citizen minority. WE see and hear that things have changes, but the chaos is due to poverty and loss of resources. We must commit to all of our neighbors. We ask for money to be invested in dignified solutions, not punishment for suffering. We have the same concerns – why treat symptoms when you can treat the cause? There are nowhere near enough resources to handle the issues. We want drinking stations, bathrooms, heating and cooling stations, alternatives to 911 for low risk crises, increased access to NARCAN – do an educational messaging campaign.
Daniel – I’ll try to alternate viewpoints.
Susan Bellville –
HB – I have read this very closely. It is interesting. I’ll keep it short, but a few responses. No one is suggestion kicking the can. There is so much work on this very issue. Nothing stops if you don’t pass this tonight. This does nothing to get people the help they need. It is absolutely divisive. I’m feeling it. It is so redundant. There are already penalties for this. What is the point of this now? It is expensive! We just got high tax bills. There is no money tied to this, but we look at over a million to support this. Let the experts do their jobs. This also creates a high administrative burden. It deputizes staff that aren’t ready to handle this. I don’t want to go line by line – vote no. I hope you do so.
Susan Bellville-
Libby Bennett – exec director at Groundworks. I was many that reached out to ask you to slow this down. I urge you to consider the weight of these decisions. Enacting this will set a precedent. Seek out ONE Brattleboro. If you provide for the needs and people opt to not use them, then enact an ordinance. Offer a place to use the bathroom, and if they don’t then have an ordinance. If you must set an ordinance look at what services are and are not available. Restorative justice has to be voluntary? Where will you offer detox beds? Mental health beds? How will you advocate for choosing other p[options. If you pass this, develop it around the available services. The options people have are scare and underfunded or difficult to access. Fines would be a substantial burden on our organization. Do not adopt this ton right. It would be irresponsible.
Danny L – BMAC – I have respect for HB and Libby but I disagree about what is in front of us. An ordinance is a great idea. We are in a place where it is long overdue. If up to me, it would be more strict than it is, but I well understand we land in different places on that. I guess general point to add, since we offer so many human services and are so compassionate, it means we need ordinances like this. Other communities don’t attract these populations. If we provide services, we need boundaries. If you go to 4 every three months that is 16 per year.
Susan Bellville –
Shea W – I was a co author of the Community safety Review. I want to heartily oppose this proposal in its entirety. You are talking about urgent issues that exist – homeless need and the motel programs ending, and visible signs of distress in the community. I notice in the petition – it is representative of social services that do the support work. Doing support work would be better way to spend money. This is the theater of criminalization. You have said using a stick, kick in the ass… if you want to support, give money to the supporters. They are most trained and experienced – we are functionally criminalizing poverty here if you are passing this because people will be out of motels. You have heard lots of evidence of harms of policing during the community safety review – hundreds of voices – this is a real abandonment of those voices then and now. Any word that this is collaborative is disingenuous. Oppose it now and resist it.
Lisa Ford – boys and girls club – please don’t slow down this process. We have been coming since 2018. We want more police, not less. I was a social worker in Philly during the crack epidemic – that is similar to Flat Street. I would not recommend that social workers intervene in some of these situations. Hope you pass this.
Cindi – manager at Twice Upon a Time – we’ve owned it for 35 years and support nonprofits around town. I feel like businesses downtown are not being heard. We also have a petition,. This isn’t about the unhoused. For us it is about feeling unsafe. Costs of everything has gone up, but we make less. Clients tell us that they no longer come to stores. We want to feel safe, lights, more police. We have watched as more people say they don’t feel safe downtown. Cops who visit carry guns because they don’t feel safe. How will people shop or move downtown? We’d love to give more , but we are making less. People need to come back downtown. People say they are afraid to park and walk. People steal from us. We are pleading with you. Please help us stay in this community.
Spencer C – where has ridiculous excessive compassion gotten us? Burlington is going to hell. Portland , OR. Everyone loses. No one is talking about demonizing people with problems, but if you are a jerk, and you take other people’s freedoms away. We should proceed cautiously. We can take another couple of weeks. We need to get a lot tougher. What about the children and dogs that can step on needles, what about compassion for those people? Why compassion for people ruing communities? What about compassion for business owners. I want a big hug giant stick, punishment. You sell drugs, we are coming after you with a big stick… cry me a river.
Anthony – Coop – I’ve heard a number of comments – will this work? I don’t think complacency is a valid response. Or are we doing too much. We haven’t done enough to date. The recent things we have done are great. We are n=on a program, let’s stick with it. How long do we wait? Who makes the call about it working or not? Accountability is needed now. We are already behind schedule. Some say we move too fast. What sdoes that means? We had an overdose downtown? Does that mean less overdoes or defecation or public intoxication, or more people feeling safe. Waiting is not the right approach here, knowing we are behind schedule.
Jason – I live on Main Street. this issue is not about addiction, mental health or homelessness. This is about behavior downtown, and what is reasonable. People passed out, drug paraphernalia in the parks – is not acceptable. No one should have to confront this on a daily basis. People can get food, resources. If we have good signs about where to get help maybe we can get them off the street, but we need to discourage this behavior. We want ti to be attractive and safe. This behavior is disruptive and can’t take place. I hear people at all hours. I have video of people shooting up, or crapping in the dumpster. It has nothing to do with being homeless. It is about appropriate behavior. I’ve offer jobs at $20 an hour and street people laugh because they can make more. But I donate to the services these people need. Several people moved out of our building because they don’t feel safe. I support this effort. pass it as quickly as possible. Increased police presence will guide people to the help they need so they can get better.
Henri – anti-trafficing and labor rights organization. I grew up in poverty, houseless, and with substance issues. Criminalization didn’t help me, what got me out was my community when I settled in Vermont. What happened was a lot of people were displaced and the Green Mtn State showed compassion and community. I’ve been advocating for 5 years – criminalization of any poverty does not work. It perpetuates imprisonment. More people will come to VT and what will happen if we have criminality without support. Accessibility to bathrooms is an issue – people poop in dumpsters when they don’t have bathrooms and they steal when they don’t have money.
Daniel – my changes – does that mean this can’t be passed tonight?
Bob F – if you think they are minor you can pass tonight. If they are major, have us make edits and adopt it at the next meeting. I only heard one item being removed.
Potter – a removal, adding entering into a restorative justice program, or adding property owner.
Bob F – obstructing traffic is a criminal statute under disorderly conduct. Part of what we have here is an overlap in criminal and civil behaviors. It’s up to you if you want that in there. If someone was obstructing sidewalks they could choose to give a cicil ticket if this passes.
Daniel – or they could have a conversation and offer no citation.
Liz – I can amend my motion to include your edits.
Daniel – ok.
Liz – (reads amended motion)
Franz – I move to table this until October 1. I don’;t want a long delay but there are people who want to have more input and there may be more we want to take. So, a two week delay in our adoption process.
Daniel – Motion to table until Oct 1…
2-3 (Daniel, Liz, and Peter against)
Motion to approve the ordinance…
Franz, Peter, Liz say yes. Daniel and Richard say no.)
Funding Downtown Safety Action Plan
Daniel – Funding Downtown Safety Action Plan.
Potter – At Aug 20, Chief Hardy spoke to you and one motion you said was to bring things back for costs of immediate implementation. Staff all worked on this to develop this estimate for the cost of implementing your downtown safety action plan. You’ll see some tables – one shows the needs for the remainder of the year. If you want to proceed immediately, this is what is needed – $199k for Bratt team staffing, 7k for uniforms, $50k for a vehicle, $35k for equipment, plus resource specialist. Then there are more officers – starting in January, that would add staff costs of $127k, 14k for uniforms and vests, $152k for two vehicles, plus equipment. Total of $675,669 for the remainder of the year. Page 96 has another table showing the cost in FY26 to implement the plan. Data analyst isn’t included yet. There would be more vehicles, and replacement costs – $803k as the ongoing costs. Several other things were referred to in the memo. One thing is we did start to look at the idea of the substation at the Transportation center – it would take more time for good estimates (October 1). The other thing is that no matter what there, it will take some time to implement that. You were looking for things more quickly. Staff and DPW came up with idea to use renovated Municipal Center space for the police. Plus, $10k for public messaging from the community safety funds. Plus more cameras with other funds. None of this is budgeted. We can consider this as an emergency need and use the fund balance – the present could be an emergency and ask RTM to ratify the spending. We are aware of a partial offset available – A FEMA grant for capital project on Williams Street – it could offset the use of the fund balance. If you want to proceed, we could wait to see what the project costs, then transfer the difference to the offset. That’s about everything… one thing I didn’t mention. FY26 annual cost of $803k would add $65 per $100k of assessed value – $180 or $200 a year per house to address downtown safety.
Daniel – a lot to digest there.
Peter – as much as I don’t like adding to the tax base aI plan on voting in favor.
Liz – the first part of the motion, this is an emergency expense to do the remainder of the year. The second half is an element in next year’s budget. So, I’m fine with this. $200 for the average homeowner – they won’t welcome this but they’ll recognize the need. Ewe’ve already set this in motion with previous votes.
Franz – I have questions – the response assistance team would be four individuals, two positions paid to outside security services so there would be some offset…
Potter – yes but the security services was unbudgetted…
Franz – money we planned on spending … it wouldn’t be new unbudgetted money. Four uniforms at $2000 each – what goes into that?
Potter – they cover the resource specialist as well.
Franz – the resource specialist – what do they do?
Chief Hardy – it was the peer support person, but we renamed it to avoid confusion. We have a need to supply individuals with information and rides to treatment. Also, they have dealt with addiction and recovery, for a more trusting individual rather than us driving them.
Franz – details of uniforms?
Hardy – for BRAT officers it is everything except a gun – a camera, protection, level 2 officers, but unarmed. The uniform will be more visible – easier to see. Don’t want them mistaken for police officers. Different from police uniforms.
Franz – come back to me later.
Richard – I’d love to see this put into place. On the other hand, I don’t really think it is an emergency and it would be a disservice if it wasn’t first presented to RTM. The other problem is the burden of taxes – this pushes things way over the top. We don’t need to burden people any more. What is really important is this needs to be looked at in context of the entire budget. RTM has the ability to look at the entire budget and priorities and give due consideration. I think we do a disservice if we push this through right now.
Daniel – this is proposed as an emergency expense – higher than I’ve seen before – and there are other options. Wait until FY26, or have a special RTM. How does that work?
Bob F – three options – one is to treat it as an emergency and spend the money and then ask RTM next year to have it ratified as a transfer from the unassigned fun balance. or you can set a special RTM- 30 to 40 days warning and then you could ask reps to authorize it. Depending on when you schedule that – my concern is the election coming up for the Town Clerk – keep that in mind timing wise. Third, you could have a special RTM and at that you could raise and appropriate the money for FY25, and amended tax bills top be sent out. It is a legal option, but a lot of extra administrative work. This are your legal options.
Daniel – say we went the emergency route today and in March if RTM votes it down?
Bob F – then the fund balance would be that much less…
Daniel – so we’d just have less funds in the fund balance. Now we have 2.2 million. Unaudited. If we spent out of it, and retain 10%, would we need to add taxes to refill that fund balance?
Treasurer Kim – we put money aside for the fund balance. If you spent from the emergency bit it would keep the fund balance intact.
Franz – $2.2 million in excess of the 10% (No.) We’d be drawing it down below 10%
Kim – We put 10% aside after we are audited. That’s our total savings.
Franz – if we put 10% aside, where?
Kim – it is held in the bank. aside.
Franz – how much above the 10% is there?
Kim – 10% of 2.2 million…
Franz – we have fund balance set aside for emergencies, or 10% of the budget. If we keep that in a bank account, what I am asking about is other fund balance not in the 10%.
Kim – it is unaudited – we don’t know. $2.2 is potential. Nothing has been set aside yet.
Franz – we’d be spending from our savings account.
Daniel – I understand that. Aside from legality and funding, the actual expense, I’m interested in seeing what happens with the BRAT project. We heard about it a month ago, we switched some security fund to two of these positions. So we’d add two more positions to give us greater coverage. I’m in favor of that. What I’m concerned about is emergency appropriations to do it. I think we should warn a special Representative Town Meeting… maybe 30 days after the election – first week of December. If RTM approves, that is better buy in, and the timeline would allow us to add these folks, when?
Hardy – we have a number of people who applied for BRAT and that takes time for background checks and polygraphs.
Daniel – when would they be working if we did it today.
Hardy – two ready within the next month. Other two … we have 10 applicants. I could probably have all 4 in the next 2 months.
Daniel -we have this ONE Brattleboro group which is a collaboration among social service organizations. That project can yield powerful results in the community and there are other things going on as well. The data project, the ordinance. We also have 5 new officers on the team working on the streets. They are out doing good work. I’m curious about BRAT… adding 3 officers as an emergency expense, I’m not sure about that.
Liz – we discussed the need for downtown officers and we wanted to add all of this in the regular budget process, but people said no and they wanted it now, and we modified the motion to go ahead now. if we are true to that vote we have to recognize that this is an emergency and we can give everyone the go ahead and get this in place by the end of the year, and have it as another set of tools and get it done and I think we have every right to authorize the spending now. No brakes. Go forward!
Daniel – what we voted on last time was dot bring us back numbers… now we have numbers.
Liz – I am content with the reality of the numbers and I take the taxpayer burden seriously. Nothing is more important than getting control of the community.
Franz – I agree. It is easy to justify the BRAT expense as emergency but not the three patrol officers. That could be something we wait on, and we do this in chunks. We’re about to do the budget and I’d like to do this as part of that rather than now. I’d not authorize the spending the FY25 officers – just BRAT and FY26 can be next year’s expenditures.
Potter – you asked for cost numbers and a funding plan. The two things – the amount to add to the base budget would be so it would be in the draft budget when we bring it to you. Included, rather than an option to add.
Richard – in light of the fact that there is $325 potentially available, $350k would have almost no impact on taxpayers. I’d like to see an amendment to consider the BRAT team an emergency and make that expenditure now. Like Franz said.
Potter – I’d ask Chief Hardy to explain the three patrol officers. Don’t you need the 3 officers to manage the BRAT team?
Hardy – once we have the downtown BRAT, we need an officer to supervise them. They won’t have arrest powers and won’t be armed. If you delay the three, the next class for the academy is in February. If we miss that class they can start work in middle 2026. We’d have to delay things and current candidates might go elsewhere.
Daniel – does this help?
Peter – with deference to the taxpayer, but if this was like Irene, we’d just do what we need to do. I don’t feel that the situation is as dire as Irene, but the expenditure of the money is necessary. of the 500 people I’ve talked to, the downtown substation is number 1 on the list. Hiring is difficult. Delaying that would kick the can down the road. We aren’t in a position to do it.
David L – a couple observations. One of my least favorite cliche is that something is unsustainable. For FY26 it will be a 4.3% increase in the municipal tax rate if it is otherwise flat compared to FY25. On top of the FY25 increase. The only way this works is if there are equal cuts in current lines for FY26. That would still mean the municipal tax rate will have gone up almost 10% in a matter of years. Plus, school taxes are going up for taxpayers. The question – what is the percentage draw on our unaudited fund balance. 40%?
Kate O – I want to speak to the budget. You need to think long and hard. This is a substantial impact with many unknowns. You don’t even know if you have the money to spend. You want to add %800k to a budget you don’t have yet. Last year it was nearly a million over – the second highest tax increase in recent years. Now you want this much for one line item. The taxpayers – over 15% increase in property taxes last year with school taxes. Long term affordability is a problem. People are drowning in taxes -a flood. I’d caution you that if you fund this for FY25, and RTM says no. The program stops. I’d urge you to think about keeping it outside of the base budget. What are you going to cut? We can’t do everything in this town.
HB – when Kate and I are on the same side, we are probably right. I am an average homeowner and don’t want to pay extra taxes. It isn’t an emergency. We’ve been talking about this for a decade or more. Now you adopt an ordinance and millions are available for it? It needs to go to RTM at the least.
– I’m not in favor of more taxes but we have to support his. We hired the Chief and asked for her solutions. She said what we have been doing isn’t working. We need to support her new ideas. If it is $200 more, it is an investment in the town and my property values. So people will shop here and remain here. People don’t want to to come down to town for dinner. Please pass this and support the Chief and her recommendations. Kim has expertise. We don’t tell us we don’t want her numbers. Follow the Chief’s recommendation. She is the expert. Most people in town will pay this.
Mary DB – I’m a taxpayer and aware of the concerns. I am encouraged by the potential offset. We have multiple needs downtown every day. Quality of life will be improved. Go with the BRAT team at least.
Danny L – I spend most of my hours in Brattleboro but I don’t pay taxes here. I have the high-test regard for the police department,. If you can do this, I think you are fortunate to have a plan developed by so competent and effective. This would be a great development downtown.
Spencer – Miss O’Connor made good points about the budget but public safety concerns supered the budget concerns. I was born here and work here and fully support his plan.
— I understand behavior problems. You are criminalizing homelessness, using the closing of motels as an excuse. WE need more mental health workers. Property costs and rental costs are emergencies, but criminalizing people’s existence isn’t compassionate. You are trashing people tents and throwing away their things. People are not a fire to be extinguished.
Cindi – I fully support the chief. I think one way.. where will we get the tax money from. if we don’t do it will businesses still be downtown. We have empty storefronts. if we fix the crime, we can bring in tax revenue. We need one thing to have the other. Safety keeps people from coming and shopping downtown.
Bethany R – NEYT – I want to say that danny has spoken up and have agreed with him. I want to say that I think that there has been a noticeable in deficit since we didn’t have the security service at the parking garage. I deeply appreciate Hardy’s commitment to increase support in Brattleboro. I lobe the idea of the BRAT. I don’t want to speak about taxes. But there have been a number of saying there is a serious need for help downtown. I worry that the longer we put them off the worse things will get. I appreciate the hard conversations. No one is coming at this with a lack of compassion or heart. Big emotion is about big love for our town and how to best go about fixing a significant problem.
Daniel – we are about an hour behind schedule.. and we have a presenter… we have a motion to implement it with an unbudgetted expense.
Franz – I’d like to amend it to just enough for BRAT, not officers. There is a lot to think about here and we need to go ahead with the BRAT team, but it isn’t an emergency beyond that. Even with the three new patrol officers, that would be next summer. There will be a late before the officers show up. Clearly we will do something productive. Don’t need to decide that tonight. $353k for BRAT team.
Liz – Not in favor. I like the original plan and Chief Hardy needs the officers asap. We need the whole package.
Peter – I agree with Liz. It is hard to hire people and get them started. It takes a long time for them to get on board.
Franz motion (BRAT only for now, plus officers in the FY26 budget as a base item) – 2-3 it fails. (Franz and Richard yes)
Original motion for the whole thang – 3-2 (Franz and Richard no)
Turning Point
Daniel – we are past our bedtimes. Christine will come to the table. But we want to hear from you. I think we had said 35 minutes. If we do that that will be 9:55. That is a late hour.
Franz – I want to hear everything., This could be the most important part. I’d hate to miss out.
Daniel – Item C is also important and we might table it.
Christine – I have a cold. We are on Flat Street. WE’ve changed our hours. Used to be 10-3 and staff worked from home a lot. We were without an executive director for 2 years. Now we are back to 9-5 hours and make changes to the dynamic. It is late. I’ll try to go through what we do. I get asked what do you do? We do so much. One thing is we take a holistic approach to addiction and recovery. We are a recovery center, not a homeless shelter. We welcome anybody, people recovering from all sorts of addictions. We have a group for you. Folks come in with active addiction and many are absent and working on recovery. It might be abstinence. Or it might be just thinking about quitting. We constantly talk about recovery and talk about fun things. We have a pool table and adventures in recovery. Many are in recovery. We have a recovery coaching program, at the local hospital emergency rooms. If people go to hospitals with addiction we send recovery coaches. We build trust and meet the needs of the individual. We don’t push treatment. We ask them what they need for support. So when they leave the emergency room, they know about Turning Point. We have an offsite coaching program, a little different – 3 offsite coaches. We go wherever the individual is – under a bridge, in a tent… we go everywhere we can possibly go to meet someone. We are out looking for them if we don’t hear from them. About 160 people served monthly. Do they need additional support, need help getting to appointments, helping them find a job… we are another resource, another shoulder to cry on. A bit of case management. We have a families program – thinking it is normal for dad to throw the TV out the window when upset. I didn’t know others didn’t have brothers addicted to heroin. Growing up in that environment is that no child has to go through that alone. We can help the children and the adults. We want to get the whole family together. When I was growing up, the family need up in rehab at the same time. Mom and I sat there – no yelling, no stress. let’s go do something for us. Even temporary peace and harmony was a blessing. We knew what we had in that moment. We want to help families reunite with their children. Our place is a safe zone. We want to create a relationship and take fear out of other agencies. Our day program – we have 500 people per month. I don’t know how we do it. We have 21 groups per week. Recovery is not all about doom and gloom. We have tea time. Just sit and talk. Our all recovery meeting is everyday. Collaboration and support is nothing shy of a miracle. I see it everyday. It warms my heart. We have acupuncture. People can volunteers with us. Come and help support our mission. We have a womens’ group. A veteran’s group … something for everyone. We have sober living – that’s our best goal. We want a sober living environment. 14 days of treatment won’t cut it (a medicaid issue). We all know it is a problem. It is not a pretty picture. What we see is that those who want rehab go for 14 days and try like hell then they make it 3 weeks or so. There is a recent law passed that will allow an 8 bed unit run like a single family residence. Our building doesn’t have a proper sprinkler system…but the new law allows me to open a sober living facility tomorrow, but I need a shower for someone to install tomorrow. That being said, and say I open sober living family, I’ll need a new location to serve all we serve. I’ll be looking for a location. I’d love some space in the Transportation Center. I’ll need some space. This is an epidemic. It is not going away. WE want to be part of the solution. We have compassion accountability. Some people do need a kick in the ass – that was my quote. Peter quoted me. We have relationship and trust, and we are like family. Lots of love. I put hope and possibility into them even if they were a jackass. Sometimes they are jerks. We are the end of the line. If you come to us and we kick you out, the last thing we want is to no trespass anyone. We have 7 day breaks that we issue. Often they apologize. When they come back, we agree to not do those things again. We hold them accountable. We do lots of education. We are addressing problems. Lots of people who come complain about the community. We are the liaison between them and the community. Stop with the needles. Stop taking a dump out back. They appreciate that. Real talk in real time at their speed. I feel safe and comfortable saying you are screwing things up.
Liz – I appreciate your work so much. I support sober living in your space. I think you need to look elsewhere than the transportation center.
Franz – thank you and your staff is awesome. It feels great down there. Sober living is critical. Sober activity centers, too.
Richard – I appreciate all you are doing. Id financing solid? Can you do the 8 beds?
Christine – tight – paycheck to paycheck. I just came on in March. yes we can do the 8 beds. We would charge for that. Maybe $4-500 a month for each. There is a tired process to it. There are urine tests, curfews, etc. We’d need a house manager. We need a location close to downtown. I have a plan B that you won’t like but it is as it is.
Peter – I support the work you are doing.
Public-
Penelope – I have thought about this a lot about trying to reach out to the people on the street to discuss what is the right behavior. Whenever I talk to them, I shouldn’t call them them – when I talk to people on the street doing behavior which I think is inappropriate, they listen. We are all adults together. Christine could help our situation a lot. If you could talk to the people you have with you and explain how we are feeling, we are about to come into our business time of year – autumn and Christmas. We make half our income now. To have people downtown to understand how important that it is to have customers. We respect them if they respect us. panhandling is a big issues.
Spencer – thank you. That was super cool what you are doing. There is so much negative stuff when you see something positive it makes you love Brattleboro. Like the Shawshank Redemption – get busy living. You are there to brighten that and help them reach their potential. It is super cool what you are doing.
Christine – when people come to our center we have lots of pictures – you’ll see hope and smiles. A different perspective of people on the streets. Stop by and hang out.
Val – I’ve been riveted. As someone who as been unhoused and is in a situation now where I am housed again. How much you have to pay makes a difference – paying $4-500 a month and then monitoring them is not helpful. WE require people to pay for their existence and they can’t. Asking people to pay for sober housing won’t work.
Christine – you aren’t wrong – Vermont doesn’t have a solid plan for people who leave rehab. We are lacking all the services. We are trying to fill some gap somehow. We can only do so much. If someone can’t pay, they won’t pay for 3 months to focus on recovery. Then maybe chip in with a partime job. Then back in society in one year.
Doran H. – I live downtown. I teach on Flat Street at NEYT. The most shocking things – Turning Point is incredible. It is astonishing they go paycheck to paycheck equal to the amount spent on police – you could have a second Turning Point for that amount. I’m astonished. I’d love for you to go back and see how to give more to Turning Point. They are on the front lines.
Eva- I work with Groundworks, on the street everyday. I am glad to see you are glad about Tunring Point. I can’t find my folks because they have been Trespassed. Some end up in the basement,ent of Sportsman’s Lounge. We want you to steer toward more Turning Point. Some of my clients have hundreds and thousands in fines and citations. We need teams to help each person. Adding police infractions, means a downhill path. More options like Turning Point, not more policing.
Daniel – I request we table the next item.
Meeting over…
Selectboard REJECTS Downtown Protections
BCS started a low-cost semi-private community-based true emergency shelter in RVs In Brattleboro in 2022. “Community-based” is not a buzzword here. This shelter model relieves downtown of hosting many homeless and provides a healing space away from crowding and drugs and away from downtown. “True emergency” means it is a cheap — not pretty — solution for the poorest victims of the housing crisis.
We asked town officials several times to start a permitting process to fit the new kind of shelter, and after one told us to go ahead without a permit, the planning board sued to evict us for zoning (parking) violations, and the local health board (selectboard) sued to evict us for violations of rental safety codes. In April, 2023 a Superior Court Injunction said the shelter was safe and could continue under easy conditions. In almost all trials the Town has relied on rumor and technicalities and excluded much of our evidence. The Town wanted fines of $72,000, and the court decided on only $9828, but the court approved the notion that individuals can be sued for actions of corporations that they work for ! We thought we had a plea-bargain to remove the RVs and drop all the charges, but the Town is still threatening to take our home and fine us $4M.
On April 30, 2024 the local safety case was dismissed, and so the injunction expired, and July 12 The Supreme Court decided against us re an order from the State Board of Health, citing inadequate formatting of our brief. Lacking time, and unable to produce proper briefs, we withdrew our appeal of the zoning case. So, the town still theoretically has the authority to sell our home. On May 4, 2024 the Town said it would not “release any enforcement”, but to date has not filed any enforcement action .
We continue to advocate the true-emergency community-based shelters in RVs as the only realistic shelter model . Our RVs have been donated as shelter for homeless people around Brattleboro, and we have started a small shelter in our home. The board must still address the issue. Their behavior standards ordinance does not create housing or shelter for the three hundred families who are losing their housing subsidies (hotel vouchers).
At its meeting Tuesday (September 3, 2024) the Brattleboro Select Board voted unanimously to approve the staff update of the recommendations of the 2020 Community Safety Report. Board members praised the committee for writing 200 pages after only three months of work. The board also praised the town manager for making a list of meetings that swelled the 96-page background notes.
In early 2021 Town Manager Peter Elwell praised the Community Safety Report and forwarded it to staff for their advice. The explicit purpose of the Community Safety Committee was for townspeople and two hired experts to advise the Select Board on public safety without a police officer. The report was their advice. Staff reviewed the report and offered their advice in the form of an “implementation table”.
In early 2023 the Select Board learned of research being conducted by the governor’s safety consultant, Jim Baker, (Reformer March 10, 2023). This provided another valuable excuse to delay the safety report.
The “Staff” in 2021 turned out to be pro-tem police chief Mark Carignan, who, instead of offering advice, was allowed to do a hatchet job on the report. Captain Carignan had been implicated (and absolved) in a police-involved killing and would have been the last officer on earth that the committee would like to include. Yet here he was placed in effect to supervise them. This was an insult and a violation of the purpose of the committee. No doubt staff this year means a police officer again. Now staff has confirmed the hatchet job, rejecting 28 of the report’s 41 recommendations as “illegal, impractical or counter-productive”. For the selectboard to hack the report to pieces and then praise it for having lots of pages is — who knows what that is.
For the record, BCS thought it was bad idea to exclude the police from the committee. BCS started direct discussions with Chief Fitzgerald on its SAFE Policing limited disarmament plan in 2017. That was before George Floyd was killed and before the formation of the committee. But under great public pressure the selectboard formed the committee without an officer. They must accept the committee’s report (or reconvene it for discussion of possible illegalities).
There was much in the report that was ignored by the board. The committee had recommended the BCS SAFE Policing limited disarmament plan. “Staff” asked for confirmation by a person with direct experience of police disarmament. That had already been done, and we re-introduced our consultant, Officer Graeme Donald of Police Scotland, (retired), who is an inspector, weapons training expert and also expert in unarmed policing. The Select Board has recently proposed funding for three unarmed officers, calling them “resource officers,” and BCS is glad that the Select Board has begun to implement the SAFE Policing measures. But we must ask about other aspects of the plan. For instance, what is impractical, illegal, or counterproductive about not bringing firearms into public meetings and schools? Do police feel in danger at a Select Board meeting? No. But many people are scared to be near police with guns, and they hesitate to attend meetings. This is spelled out in the community safety report.
Hearing similar questions at their September 3 meeting, Police Chief Norma Hardy retorted that school children like police. She also retorted that she would never expose her officers to unnecessary danger and that our consultant thought that disarmed policing would not work in Brattleboro.
We have more confidence in Brattleboro and Brattleboro police, and we say it will work. Similar plans work all around the U.K. and around the world, in places more dangerous than Brattleboro. Besides, guns do not protect officers: helmets and bullet-proof vests do that. What’s more, the chief forgets that the Community Safety Committee was not designed to make the police feel safe. They are safe. No policeman has ever been killed on duty in Brattleboro. Only on very few calls do police even unholster their guns. The chief retorted that the unarmed officers go out only on selected calls. That’s like saying, armed officers go out only on selected calls when use of fire-arms is anticipated, and that’s what the SAFE Policing plan prescribes. And, of course, there is nothing illegal, etc, about applying this to all the calls and officers.
We do not, like the selectboard, resort to the most heavy-handed use of the police force. The board has used the police to destroy homeless’ tents and property, to expose their hiding spaces in bushes and overgrown spaces and to deny them of any place to sleep. The board wants to violate the principle of civilian control of police, as promoted by the safety committee.
The old board has ignored policing proposals that were not reviewed by the committee. In 2020 we offered real estate for a substation close to downtown at no cost to the town. Now the board wants a substation (at great expense). We regret that the town missed having a substation for four years, but we are glad that this new board is moving toward our proposal. BCS offered a special mobile office RV that was just right for a mobile substation. Such an office could be stationed in front of drug houses to inhibit traffic, or it could be moved downtown. The BCS SAFE Policing Pilot Plan is right for downtown: regular unarmed officers on foot patrols. It’s a schedule for every officer to patrol downtown and record data. The sight of unarmed police officers would be a welcome sign of a safe and peaceful downtown. We are confident that Brattleboro Police Department can make this happen.
Brattleboro Common Sense
info@BrattleboroCommonSense.org
brmse.org
#BCS
A Lot for a Small Town
We’re dealing with several issues and many needy people in this little town, with finite resources to deal with them all.
Since the loss of residential drug treatment and mental health facilities, things have gotten out of hand. That’s what needs to come back- residential facilities.
Police are our front line, but their job is to respond to crime (which there’s plenty of), not to babysit.
If the majority of the problems come from homelessness that’s what we need to fix, as a lasting solution. Give people shelter and they won’t be on the streets. We can work forward from there.
And Winter is coming.