BRATTLEBORO-While the town’s Representative Town Meeting Finance Committee issued a “short preview” of its independent budget report and it was not exactly on board with the about $27 million budget the Selectboard voted to recommend in January, things may have changed.
For sure what has changed post-annual election is that the vote kicked in a few new wrinkles that are set to be addressed at the Tuesday, March 10, Selectboard meeting after press time.
Now that voters have eliminated Representative Town Meeting, the newly constituted board must warn an open Annual Town Meeting for Saturday, April 11.
The meeting warning must be approved prior to Friday, March 13, for the Annual Town Meeting to legally proceed.
Most articles mirror the prior Representative Town Meeting warning, but several changes are now required.
The Human Services Committee, previously created by Representative Town Meeting, no longer exists. Town staff members recommend appointing its current members as a temporary, Selectboard-appointed ad hoc committee so they can finish this year’s work.
Because the former Finance Committee was also created by Representative Town Meeting, two articles propose establishing a new advisory budget committee under state law, and determining whether it will be Selectboard-appointed.
The recent charter change petition votes about moving to Australian ballot and open Town Meeting were inconclusive — voters chose both. To comply with state law while the Legislature considers the proposed changes to the town charter, two articles ask voters whether future budget articles and public questions should be decided by Australian ballot.
State law requires Annual Town Meeting on the first Tuesday in March, but the open meeting portion may occur up to three days earlier, if voters approve. Another article asks whether, starting in 2027, the open meeting should take place on the preceding Saturday.
A separate memo recommends formally creating a Human Services Committee and appointing seven members for five months so they can complete the current budget cycle.
Former Finance Committee’s stance
Millicent Cooley, who chaired the former RTM Finance Committee, said all six members agreed to share publicly the committee’s initial summation.
The Finance Committee memo notes the Selectboard-recommended budget is “without any funding for human services” and goes on to say “this is after a 10.8% increase in FY26 ($1,918K), and a total 17.9% increase in two years.”
“The overall budget went up 17.2% [$3.98 million] during the last two years,” writes Cooley. “This trend is troubling, as the town now has a $27 million FY27 budget and did not achieve the goal of a low, single-digit increase.”
The Finance Committee says the FY26 increase in overall property taxes “went up less than expected because the state supplemented some of the education costs, and relying on that is bad economic business.”
The committee also says “both FY26 and FY27 budgets were approved without the consideration of a long-term plan to show the consequences of those budgets.”
The memo emphasizes several times that the Selectboard’s recommended budget would increase the town part of property taxes by 6.3% “without any consideration for human services” and that it would increase the town portion of those taxes by 7.6%, if human services in the amount of $250,000 were added during Town Meeting.
The members of the former committee continue, saying that the Selectboard’s budget would result in the overall town property tax increase around 7.5% when combined with the state education tax, and may be as high as 9 or 10%, depending on the state education tax assessment — and that town tax increase, they say, “could be as much as 3–4 times the rate of expected inflation.”
The memo also points out that Town Manager John Potter has published a five-year general fund projection, “which is a great start.”
It also says “there is no 25-year capital investment plan showing future investments for things like the pool ($6.5M) and DPW building ($15M).”
If those projects were financed together in a bond, say Finance Committee members, “it would likely result in additional yearly payments of over $1 million over 30 years.”
The committee also says “there is no reporting of the current unassigned fund balance — also called rainy day or contingency fund — that is used to deal with unanticipated emergencies.”
The Town Manager responds
Prior to the March 3 election, The Commons asked each Selectboard member who voted on the budget — which was not unanimously recommended — and Potter for their responses to the Finance Committee’s memo.
Only Potter responded.
“The Finance Committee plays an important role in reviewing the town’s budget and helping inform Representative Town Meeting, and I appreciate all the time and effort that goes into that work,” he said. “At the same time, it is important that the discussion reflects the full context of the budget and the decisions that have been made.”
Potter continued to say the FY27 budget “reflects a continuation of trends that communities across Vermont and the country are experiencing — rising costs for wages, health insurance, liability coverage, and infrastructure, along with increasing demand for services.”
“In Brattleboro, these pressures are compounded by our role as a regional hub, serving a broader population than our resident base alone, as well as increased service demands associated with statewide programs such as the motel voucher program,” said Potter, adding that “some of the information being presented reflects only part of the picture and additional context is important to fully understand the impact on taxpayers.”
Budget increases, he said, “don’t translate directly into tax increases, and the actual impact on taxpayers is influenced by factors such as Grand List growth and state education funding.”
“Brattleboro continues to deliver a full range of services at a relatively low cost per resident, but relies heavily on property taxes, which makes any increase more noticeable,” Potter said. “The budget ultimately reflects a set of tradeoffs about services, infrastructure, and long-term sustainability.”
Potter noted that in recent years, the actual property tax increases experienced by taxpayers have been:
• FY23 to FY24: 2.2% overall (4.5% municipal)
• FY24 to FY25: 7.8% overall (4.4% municipal)
• FY25 to FY26: 2.7% overall (8.9% municipal)
These figures, he said, “illustrate that the relationship between budget growth and tax impacts is not one-to-one, and that overall property tax changes are influenced by multiple factors beyond the municipal budget alone.”
In summation, Potter said “the FY27 budget reflects a series of deliberate policy choices made through a public process.”
“These choices balance maintaining essential services, addressing rising costs, investing in infrastructure, and recognizing the financial impact on taxpayers,” the town manager noted. “Any reduction in the proposed increase would require corresponding reductions in services, staffing, or capital investment, and those tradeoffs are appropriately part of the public discussion.
“The Finance Committee may come to different conclusions about these policy choices, and their report may be an important part of the community’s consideration of the budget,” Potter said, noting that ultimately, voters at Town Meeting “will have the opportunity to weigh these perspectives and determine the path forward.”
This News item by Virginia Ray was written for The Commons.