Thank you.

All right.

Let's bring the Brattleboro Select Board meeting to order.

Today is Thursday, January 22nd, 2026.

And this is a regular meeting at a different time.

Or is this a special meeting, John?

Where are we?

This is a special meeting.

This is a special meeting.

John, has it been properly warned?

Yes, it has.

Great.

Are there any adjustments to the agenda that anyone would like to bring forward?

All right.

Hearing none.

Chair's remarks.

I think most of my remarks, I'll see.

But John, do you have any?

Yes, I have quite a few tonight.

Let's see.

First of all, the uh highway superintendent asked me to let you know that the state of Vermont and several surrounding states are currently experiencing a shortage of road salt for winter storm operations from supply shortages.

So as a result, the town will be unable to get additional salt deliveries for about the next two weeks.

And this time frame may extend depending on the supply availability.

The town right now has an adequate salt supply to maintain priority roads, main travel corridors, and steep hills for the next few weeks.

However, uh to ensure that we have sufficient reserves remaining available, uh residents may notice changes in how salt is applied during winter weather events.

During this period, sand may be used on some side roads as needed, and salt application may be lowered or adjusted in priority in lower priority roadways.

These measures are necessary to preserve the reserves to preserve their resources while continuing to maintain safe travel conditions.

Public safety remains the top priority for the department, and they'll continue to prioritize roadway safety and monitor conditions closely, making adjustments as we need to respond to weather events.

And we appreciate everyone's understanding and patience as we manage limited resources during this regional supply shortage.

And updates will be provided as the conditions change.

The town clerk asked me to let you know that petitions for Brattleboro Town Officers.

Wyndham Southeast School District Board members and town meeting members are available at the town clerk's office during open business hours from Monday through Friday from 8 30 to noon and from 1 o'clock to 5 p.m.

Completed petitions are due back to the town clerk's office by 5 p.m.

on Monday, January 26th for town officers and representative town meeting members, incumbents for RTM meet members who have terms expiring.

They will be mailed a notice of intent form in early January.

Hopefully those have gone out.

And those must be uh returned and signed uh by 5 p.m.

on Monday, January 26th, if you want to continue uh as an RTM member.

Town elections will be Tuesday, March 3rd at the American Legion, located at 32 Linden Street.

An annual representative town meeting will begin on Saturday, March 21st at 8:30 a.m.

in the high school gymnasium.

2026 dog licenses are available either through the online portal that can be accessed through the town's website or in the town clerk's office.

All renewals are due by April 1st.

Uh all dog owners should have either received an email or a notice in the mail with instructions for renewing their dog licenses.

Note that we are working through the dog licenses already submitted, which is taking longer than expected.

Anyone who has submitted online will receive an email with payment options.

The last the last announcement I have for you tonight, uh I really I bring with a heavy heart.

Um I need to inform you that uh Chief Norma Hardy has given me given me official notification of her pending retirement on March 30th.

I've been uh working to really hard to postpone this day as long as possible, but I know from extensive conversations with the chief that now is the best time for the next chapter in her life.

And I thank her and I wish her all the best.

Chief Hardy came to Brattleboro in 2021, and in the four and a half years that she has served the town.

Her leadership and compassion have led to innovative policing strategies like the Bratt Unit, the community resource officer, and a fully staffed HCRS police liaison program.

In addition to that, uh her leadership with the uh Brattleboro Police Department team overall has been excellent, and I find that they work together, support each other, and support everyone in our community with care.

We will miss uh Chief Hardy at department head meetings on emergency scenes, and just seeing her walking the beat up and down Main Street where she knows all the business owners and everyone that she passes.

But I know the town is ready to continue the success of the legacy that she's established, and that's why I'm also happy to announce that I will be appointing Assistant Chief Jeremy Evans as the 25th Brattleboro Police Chief, effective March 30th.

As they have reoriented staffing, set goals and objectives, develop top-notch training programs, establish strong community partnerships, and address the daily public safety challenges in our town.

I'm also pleased to announce that Captain Adam Pettlock will be concurrently promoted to assistant chief to smoothly transition our police leadership team.

Captain Petlock has been an invaluable member of the Brattleboro Police Department for the past 15 years.

I'm impressed by his outstanding performance, his work ethic, strategic thinking, and his dedication to this town.

Working together and with the support of everyone in the community, I believe the Chief Evans and Assistant Chief Petlock will carry on the legacy of Chief Hardy and built and build an increasingly innovative and effective approach at the police department that is worthy of Brattleboro.

That's all I have tonight.

Well, then let me just uh get back to um first of all um Seth put out a press release about the weather, the bad weather, and I want to make sure that everybody understands that.

Um and then I just um wanna say how much we're gonna miss Chief Hardy, how much we appreciate her work, and how much um I feel that the strength that she brought to to this department will carry on without her.

I think that Chief Hardy will be missed.

I think that she brings she brought tremendous strength to our town and our police department, and I'm sure that uh that will continue with newly installed uh Chief Evans and Assistant Chief Petlock.

Are there other members of the select board who wish to comment?

Oscar Yeah, thank you.

I uh Chief Hardy transformed the department and in many ways.

Yeah, she transformed it.

The town owes her a great debt.

She's done incredible work, and we'll all be very sorry to not have her at the helm.

I've also um I've had outstanding experiences working with both Jeremy Evans and Adam Petlock, and I'm confident the department is in excellent hands.

But this is something that's gonna take some time for us to digest, and I think fully appreciate.

So thank you, Chief Hardy for your service.

Um, one other John, did you mention the email stuff from today?

Uh which stuff is that, Oscar?

Just well, so uh just anyone who we had the most poorly timed of all select board emails go haywire this afternoon.

So apologies to anyone who tried to contact us and it bounced back.

Um probably the most unfortunate moment that could have happened, so our apologies.

Are there other select board members who wish to comment?

Okay then.

Uh public participation.

Uh are there members of the public who would wish to speak about something that is not on tonight's agenda?

I see Gemma's hand go right up and then Dick and Kate.

Randy.

Jim, is that your paper?

I don't think so, no.

Okay.

Gemma Seymour District 8.

Um, I would just like to request that select board uh direct town staff to ensure that any snow and ice is removed from bicycle parking areas, particularly at town hall, but also on all town properties this winter.

Uh this is a common problem in our town, but having piles of snow and ice right up against where bicycles are supposed to be parked doesn't just impact me.

It impacts everybody in this town who has business with the town and needs to park their bicycle here.

I'm not the only person who rides a bicycle, even if I'm usually the only person who rides a bicycle to these meetings.

But uh it's very dangerous.

I'm partially disabled.

That's why I ride an electric bike.

And uh that, you know, having a pile of snow and ice right there by where I need to lock up my bicycle is a particular danger to me.

So please do something about that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Dick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh thank you, Chief Hardy.

And uh thank you, John, for having the insight to pick Jeremy as uh our next uh chief.

He's been with the community a long time, and uh he's really committed to the community uh along with uh Mr.

Pedlock, so he will uh make a great assistant chief.

Um a couple things that uh I I thought somebody would mention the impending cold weather that's uh gonna be in here Saturday.

Uh shelters for for people.

I know that this shelter up at uh town Crior Drive, they have limited capacity.

They've also had staffing issues.

Uh so I'm not even sure if if that will be open.

If you could talk a little bit about that.

And then we're also supposed to get uh between 12 and 18 inches of snow starting Saturday through Sunday and into Monday.

Uh so some huge issues before us.

Uh I have something about consent agenda, but I'll wait until we do the budget discussion.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Seth Chair, I can speak to the shelter question.

Right.

But uh let before that, Amanda, if I may, Seth, do you want to uh talk about your weather and announcement?

Um sure, I would just direct people to Bridleboro.gov.

It's on the homepage right now and in the news section.

It has um several updates and advisories for the community heading into the uh the weekends.

And that came from um Jay Simons, our uh fire chief.

Um it talks about the shelter capacity and the warming capacity and their hours and very good.

Yep.

Thank you.

Amanda?

Yeah.

So beyond that, too, for the public record here.

Um I volunteer at um the beloved shelter two mornings a week.

And um I we were informed by Christina Sheonier, who is the um director that they are fully staffed currently.

The weekend will be open because it's cold weather, there are up to 15 spots that can be there prior, unless if it's um not an emergency um temperature uh moment, it's only eight.

But um, so um that shelter is doing wonderful things for our community.

Um there members of the public who wish to speak.

Uh, wasn't it Kate and then Randy?

Hi everybody, Kate O'Connor Brattleboro.

This is a totally out-of-the-box issue, but there's something going on in the legislature that's very important and very timely and impacts us that I want to make sure everybody knows about.

Currently the spent nuclear fuel that was generated at the VY plant in Vernon can be stored there.

But there's a bill in the legislature, H601 that will allow spent nuclear fuel from anywhere to be stored at the VY site.

It's been introduced by a legislator from Rutland County and a legislator from Caledonia County.

Obviously, it's easy for them to say we're gonna store spent nuclear fuel for all over the world at VY.

I have been in touch with um people in Vernon and talked to people here.

This is not a locally generated issue.

Nobody has called them and say we want spent nuclear fuel from other plants here.

It's really important, it's really timely.

So if any of you get in touch with your legislators or see them, please tell them we do not want spent nuclear fuel from other places here.

If anybody wants to know why, I'm happy to tell you, it's not a good thing.

Nobody wants it.

And I don't think we want some people, random people in Montpelier telling us that we have to become the nuclear repository because Yucca Mountain is not open.

So please I think it's important that we stay on top of it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

And just Kate, for the record, tell the people how many years you spent working on that issue when the nuclear power plant was closed.

Yeah, I spent, I was um appointed by the governor to be the chair of the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel, and I did that from 2014 to 2018.

So I'm not a novice on the importance of what's going on at VY.

So thank you.

And the the importance of of speaking to our legislators can't be underestimated.

Hi, Randy Blodgett, uh District 7.

Just a quick question.

Thank you to Chief Hardy, first of all, and and then the new people taking over.

Um I had a question about Molly Burke's bill that we brought up at other meetings.

I can't seem to find that on the legislative docket.

And I I looked two days two days ago last time.

I didn't know if anyone knew what the bill number was for the use tax for fuel in local.

Do you know, Oscar?

Molly told me a few days ago that it is it will very soon get to the state where it gets a number and becomes public, but I would assume a couple more days.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah.

And you know what, Randy, we find out we'll let you know.

Okay.

I was just curious because it's all very important to us.

Yeah.

And I I know uh from speaking to Ian on another matter.

Um they're not going to release something until it's officially filed and has a number so that everybody's on the same page.

Uh yes.

We have uh Abby Manukin.

Abby Manukin.

Hi, Abby Manukin, District 8, joined by my kiddo who wants to be on screen.

Um I missed the um John Potter's remarks about something about the high school gymnasium, but I don't think that that was related to um a winter shelter for this weekend.

I um have gone to the Brattleboro.gov page that you were referring to, and it's advising people to go to Groundworks and um Levid Community Shelter, both of which will be full.

And there are going to be people who are unhoused and in need of shelter this weekend.

As you mentioned, there will be extreme cold temps and um a lot of heavy expected snowfall.

So I would like to really encourage the town to open up an emergency shelter, could be at the fire station.

Um, but this is um a time of great need.

And I also want to say that today, especially um I'm disappointed that the town manager um and the chair did not mention the homelessness um day of action and vigil that took place just before this meeting that was um coordinated by 69A and a lot of community members um and town, the select board clerk um Isaac there is not as and I think John Potter as well.

I arrived later, but um I think that deserved to be part of the opening remarks and honoring those last community members who um who whose lives were cut short um in large part because they did not um have shelter, which is a human human right, and I hope that the town will reconsider and open something for this weekend.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak?

All right then.

Uh let's see.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

I just wanted to thank the town manager for participating and speaking at that uh homelessness vigil and um acknowledge the lives that have been lost.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um John, do you want to discuss the consent agenda?

Sure.

Uh you have two items on the consent agenda tonight.

If you approve this agenda, you'll be approving the final change order for the Pleasant Valley Water Treatment Facility Upgrade Project and ratifying final settlement with Kingsbury companies.

And I just want to take a moment to thank um to thank Dan Tyler and Chrissy Haskins at Dufrain Group for really excellent work on um on doing that 14 million dollar project, and now it's complete.

You'll be appointing uh Nicholas Whalen and Sally Cruz Nix to the Small Business Assistance Program Loan Review Committee, and those are the two things on consent.

Great.

Is there anyone on the select board who wishes to pull an item from the consent agenda?

All right then.

Is there anyone on the select board who would like to make a motion regarding this consent?

I'll motion that we accept the consent agenda as presented.

Great.

Peter has moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.

All select board members in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

And that's five zero.

Okay, regular business.

The first is town approved tax exemption requests.

John, do you want to take it away?

You want a little intro intro on this?

Yes, please.

So there are a number of uh properties that the town has voted uh uh to do an exemption from the municipal uh tax portion of the real estate taxes.

Uh those are renewed every five years.

And so I think there were I think there were maybe five of them that came up this this time around and uh letters were sent out to these organizations, and three of them responded that they would be interested in continuing to have the town uh vote on their municipal uh tax exemption.

And those three parties, I believe, are here tonight, or there are representatives here tonight that um might want to speak with the board about this.

If if you uh if you were so inclined, the suggested motion would be to place an article on the representative town meeting warning that would uh ask the town whether they want to approve the exemptions.

And and um would that motion be collective or individual?

It it doesn't matter if you could do it collectively.

Okay.

And then this is before town meeting in whatever form town meeting takes.

Um yeah, okay.

Yes.

Very good.

Okay, would um would um like to come and sit at the table and tell us about their organization and the request for municipal property tax exemption renewal.

Thank you.

I can stand.

No.

Good evening.

Please introduce yourselves.

Hi, my name is Zane Defiant, and I'm the director of operations at New England Center for Circus Arts.

I'm here tonight with Serenity Smith Fortune and Elena Day.

Serenity is the founder of the school, and Elena Day is my co-director.

Um we've we're here to express our gratitude first for the exemption that we got last time.

Um that has uh severely supported our uh time in a difficult financial period.

We struggled last year uh with our board looking to vote to file for bankruptcy in November of 2024.

Um we are the new leadership team there, and I'm pleased to say that we're still arrived.

We're still around.

Um we were at a critical crossroads.

The previous board voted to close the school and file for bankruptcy.

Since then, this leadership team has stepped forward in a very challenging period.

It stabilized operations and carried the organization forward.

We're in new roles, but we've been deeply engaged in understanding our finances, our governance, and our responsibilities to the community.

Our understanding that the exemption that we got before provided temporary breathing room while we appealed the state decision not to recognize NECA as tax exempts for all of the property taxes.

We appealed to the listers, and we're in the process of that.

Um the reason they denied our claim was that they determined that we weren't a public institution, which we strongly disagree with.

Um we're not just a recreational dance school.

We're actually one of only four professional circus training institutions remaining in the United States, and we are the oldest vocational training program in the country.

Just this week, another sister school closed in Philadelphia.

After a thorough review of our financial report performance for 2025, I'm encouraged to report that NECA has turned the corner and is poised to pose a positive revenue for the first time in many years.

This progress is due to the disciplined restructuring, responsible financial management, and extraordinary commitment of its staff and students.

NECA is deeply embedded in Brattleboro's economy and cultural life.

As an employer, as a service provider, a driver of tourism, and a national leader in arts, education, and safety.

We are here tonight to ask for the continued support while we stabilize the organization and continue delivering public benefit to the community.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I would love to answer any questions.

Great.

Why don't I suggest, let's see what you guys think.

We'll have each of the three nonprofits come and speak, and then we'll have general questions afterwards.

I think that might be speed things up a little.

Sure.

Okay.

So thank you very much.

I appreciate your commentary.

Thank you so much for having us.

And um is Tom Costello here?

Tom.

Good evening, Tom.

And uh may I ask the man who needs no introduction to introduce himself, please I'm uh Tom Costello, and uh I feel so um honored and anxious, if you will, to be here uh for a number of reasons, including in when I before I had a king, I'd walk in here a few times with uh young man in chains, and with the results of the jury who sat right here and walked out without chains for many years.

This was the district court and uh and and and served our uh our people so well.

And I'm I'm very uh acquainted because of my uh background with public service.

And I I know what you are doing.

It is extraordinary.

And I can say to each of you uh I'm very and for others, I'm very, very grateful.

I uh am engaged with the American Legion and has been around for about a hundred years here in Brateboard, and we're here on the exemption for only the education uh the municipal portion of the taxes for the town, and the total tax bill is 2,025.

We're asked for exemptions again for the municipal portion, which is 1564, and we continue to pay the educational provisions.

This is uh uh I I expect you've all been down there.

There's still a lot down there on South Main Street, was built by the 48 Club, which was a gang of uh people from World War II, including Billy Holiday's father, who was one of the leaders, and they dug that out and bought that land and have maintained it since that time.

And it's kind of easy work in a way because Bratta was such a baseball town, but it's an extraordinary facility, unrivaled anywhere in the state.

And and and the Little League operation is run uh uh through the Legion.

We feel like we're uh we're part of the deal, uh, like you, uh serving the public.

Uh we serve uh old people, young people.

We have a oratorical contest on the 31st this month for Danny Schmidt, who is a senior Brattleboro High School, extraordinary young man, he's gonna win the state championship, and then he's gonna go on to the national one.

Extraordinary man, working very hard with veterans to do that.

And then you're all aware of the band and the flags and the graves and care for our old people, young people, beggars and thieves, and we we take them all in.

And and uh it's uh like your job is to ours is two.

And we dealt with a pandemic.

And over the last two and a half years, we have uh reorganized our operation through the leadership of uh people uh and had developed a renewal which pushed us on a position to go forward, but we struggle from hand to mouth.

And during the pandemic, I'm gonna leave you with, if I can, a description of what we've done over the last two and a half years.

Everyone's struggling.

You are we we all make sacrifices, and we have to give up things that we wish you could have done because we have to make it happen.

We have to stay stay viable.

And let me give you that.

And the other thing is in order to operate, we need work together.

You people realize that.

You are doing that, and you are to be commended.

Others do not.

And they have the responsibility.

I'm talking about financial institutions who are no longer here.

Used to be able to go down the street, see Jack Hunter or Jack Barry or Fred and resolve you.

You can't do it now.

Where do you go?

Burlington or Providence or Springfield overseas.

You are here.

And that problem is we got people here that are not picking up and doing their chore.

As a result of in our difficulties, we had a line of credit of $50,000.

I thought it would be an easy chart to amortize that.

I can't because can't talk to the people because they're too far away.

So what we've done is rather than and whine and complaining, we're going to have a little program, and we call it burn the mortgage.

And everybody has an opportunity to participate.

And the end of the physical year, we're going to burn that more, $50,000.

So you can you can you can do this and dedicate it to your father, your uncle, your son, your spouse, or some organization.

This is a veteran or some veteran cause.

So we're going to do that.

I'm going to leave you with these opportunities to yourselves or your friends and neighbors to join us in your contribution to make this go away.

You have uh with us a partner who respects you or work with you and and very grateful we are for all you have done.

Appreciate your consideration.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Tom.

And now is there someone here from the family garden?

No.

Yes.

Hello.

Hello, sorry, I could not make it item last minute child illness.

Can you hear me okay?

It is.

Just if you could speak up a little bit, I'm having trouble hearing you.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate the chance to talk.

My name is Ther Tomlinson.

I have been on the board of the family garden for the last 15 years.

We are a local nonprofit child care.

We serve 28 children in the region and one of the few child care centers that has an infant room as well.

We own our own building, or I should say we have a mortgage on our own building that has been a local child care center, gosh, I think for 45, 50 years at this point.

For many years, we had requested exemption for both the education and municipal portion of the taxes, but began paying our educational portion of the taxes in 2019.

And are requesting an exemption for the municipal portion of our taxes.

We've got uh, as I mentioned, 28 children, and 82 percent of our families receive financial assistance.

So all of our funds go toward teacher salaries and keeping our center moving forward as a nonprofit.

And this is a significant item that we really appreciate the opportunity to have exempted so that we can keep operational.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Um so let's um let me ask my colleagues if anyone has any questions or comments for any of these um uh tax exemption request entities.

Oscar.

Could we just get a general refresher on there are earlier steps this process, right?

There are other paths that organizations can follow to get exemptions, including through the listers and through the state, I believe.

Is that right?

Let's ask John.

Um are there other ways?

Um well there are state statutes that um make uh the the exemption available to certain institutions, and I presume that these organizations were not bound to meet those statutes.

So that this is available to these.

Right.

Okay.

And John, were there others who were asked if they wanted to renew and chose not to?

Yes, there were.

Interesting.

Are there any others on different terms that don't expire this year that are I would agree?

But there are, yes.

Okay.

I would imagine so.

Okay.

Um other comments?

I have a question.

Yes.

Yeah.

So in our backup materials, um, there's discussion of section 3832.

Um Hannah's sitting there.

Um I just would like to just so that's understood.

The exemption from taxation of real and personal estate granted, sequestered or used for public by us or charitable uses shall not be construed as exempting seven real and personal property of an organization when the property is used primarily for health or recreational purposes, unless the town or municipality in which the property is located so votes at any regular or special meeting duty warrant therefore.

So that's what is that saying exactly?

That's saying that those um public pies and charitable uses for recreational purposes are not automatically exempted as they would be with other public pious or charitable uses, um, but they can be if the town votes to have them be.

Uh and with the town has voted to grant those exemptions.

And so does that include the personal property within any ofin the building, for example.

So a a business, a traditional business in Brattleboro would pay a personal property tax, would file that with the town.

But this I believe is only for the municipal real estate tax.

Municipal real estate exclusively.

I think they could apply for the same for personal property tax, but I the mo um John can correct me if I'm wrong.

The motion before you is only on the real property and not the business personal property.

Yeah.

Let's let's if I can um if you finish your commentary, we can ask Jennifer Brunell to to come.

Hi, everybody.

Hi, Jim.

Um I believe what that is referring to is um it can be brought to the town to vote to exempt personal property.

Some towns have um asked the town to vote it to um make personal property exempt from taxation.

We have um in Brattleboro, and I don't know what the date is, come to the town to ask for a $5,000 reduction in personal property assets.

So your depreciated assets, if you file a business license, you'll um be granted the $5,000 exemption.

So I believe that's what that is referring to.

And what Hannah mentioned um is correct, where uh the um they if it's uh recreational facility, um they have to come to the town.

They can't come to the listers.

I believe that's yeah.

So what we're I have to do is um for uh more information on nonprofit is uh already exempt from personal property.

So we're these three things that we're discussing tonight.

Um I guess two of them are recreational in nature, and that's why they're coming to the town.

Yes.

And the third is it I believe it's simply a nonprofit aspect.

Simply a nonprofit, yes.

Right.

Um then they're each only asking for the municipal portion and not the school portion.

Right.

Because otherwise, we as a town would have to pay their school portion.

Correct.

So that's an important distinction.

Is anyone on the select board have any more questions and particularly I think we should keep Jennifer around because she's so knowledgeable.

Anyone?

No, okay.

Anyone in the in the public have any questions?

I see Dick and then Tony.

Okay, great.

Dick and then Tony, please.

Uh I certainly support these three.

Um actually, when uh I was a business owner on Main Street, uh we had a lot of customers that uh from students and or parents uh and so it was uh an economic driver, at least for our business downtown, and I'm sure uh other businesses downtown.

So in a little and the Legion has always done outstanding and so all three uh, and it's interesting the five thousand dollar exemption in the business personal property came about, I believe, in 2013 when uh we decided to change that to go to a $50, and I think you people raised it to $100 this year, but uh to give people that $5,000 exemption, and now it's $100.

So thank you, and I hope you support all three of these organizations.

Thank you.

Tony Tony Duncan District 9.

Um I'm the longest serving staff member at NECA who is not a twin.

Uh and uh I've actually studied education a lot, um a lot informally, but with some very um great educators and Columbia University and other places.

And um NECA does have a recreational aspect, but it also is a really rigorous educational um institution that really focuses on educational aspects that trains people to be in professions that um many of whom are very successful at.

Um it also is recreational, but I think the idea that it is it shouldn't be I mean I it seems to me it should be listed as an educational organization that also does recreational stuff.

Um to confirm Dick's uh point, um I as a person who rent property both with my ex-wife and my current wife have made thousands of dollars from NECA students and staff and visiting professor, you know, visiting um people from the community.

Um and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to mention this, but when I was strongly involved in supporting this when it first came out, um and there were some major disagreements I had with the previous board and the people running it, um that I was very firm that I would not uh promote at the um at representative town meeting.

Um one of the things that I strongly pushed for um that was cut down with the previous group was that I strongly support using pilot and having nonprofits, not just NECA, but nonprofits that have any capability to try to give whatever they can back to the town.

Um and I have supported that with the current administration.

Um I know them, they're very honest, and um, you know, I think that that's something from my understanding is it isn't very used very much, that we do not get much money from that.

And um, because of the budget issues in this town, I really want to support any nonprofit that is getting this exemption to see what they can afford to do for that.

Thank you.

And I and I I think you all know that the select board has asked various nonprofits to have a um negotiated uh pay a negotiated portion of the municipal tax, and we have been successful, and uh uh that has a lot of merit, and I appreciate you saying so.

And I also appreciate Tony you telling us so much about your life.

Uh including your singleton status.

So we have Mr.

Levinbach, I believe.

Thank you.

Thank you, David Lovenbach District 9.

Uh I have a couple of questions I'd like you to pose to Ms.

Brunell, and then I have uh questions and observations of the applicants.

Uh for Ms.

Brunell, the question would be I think currently there are five, and I want to correct Oscar a little bit.

Um we set them at RTM, we set them all on the same cycle.

So there were as I remember there are five of them.

And they're all to expire the same year.

Um I gather that the Holton home is out of the running in this uh condition.

And that I but I suppose when Wyndham Windsor Housing Trust redevelops that property, they may be eligible to apply for an exemption.

Uh the other thing is uh I'm assuming that Camp W, which was number five, did not apply for another exemption.

Just want to clarify that.

And that takes care of the questions for Ms.

Rennell.

Thank you.

I can remember them all, David.

Um, so uh we did ask two-year to bring them into the cycle of the others that were expiring.

There are uh were just the five, and now we have just the three that are coming back.

Um so there are no more uh with any expiration dates in the future.

Um let's see.

And um when it becomes if I don't know how public that is, but it's uh if it does um become uh property of Windham Windsor, um I believe that it would be treated like some of the other properties.

If it's a subsidized housing unit, it would be um valued by a state method, which is a reduction in and it's based on HUD rents per unit with other math involved.

Um can you refresh?

So uh Camp Wabanog um did not renew and yeah, they they were one that did not come back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Jennifer.

All right, is there anyone else in the public or the board who wishes to comment on this before we have a vote?

I did a motion.

I'll I'll make the motion.

Great.

And I am before I make the motion, I want to thank the organizations that came tonight and um thank you for your what you bring to our community, the life and the sport and the participation in our economy.

It's it's really really important.

I appreciate that.

And supporting um families with young children, something near and dear to my heart.

Um and with that, I will make this motion.

I move to place an article on the Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting warning asking if the town will approve the exemption of the municipal tax portion of real estate taxes for the post-five American Legion baseball field, the family garden, and the New England Center for Circus Arts NECA.

Thank you, Amanda.

Amanda has made a motion to place an article on the Brateborough Representative Town Meeting warning asking if the town will approve the exemption of the municipal tax portion of real estate taxes for the post-five American Legion baseball field, the family garden, and the New England Center for Circus Arts NECA.

All the select board members and quick if you don't um David's hand is up again, and I feel like I remember him saying that he had questions for Jennifer and then another question for the board.

If that's all right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um three questions are uh uh question for NECA.

This is sort of awkward, but as a nonprofit organization, the question always rises: what is the remuneration, salaries and benefits for the principals?

Um with respect to the Little League.

Uh I will also say that I think a case can be made, and Dick made it, that NECA is a contributor to the economy of the town.

And I think that's worth noting again.

Um just to clarify, the American Legion is statutorily exempted, but that doesn't necessarily carry over to the Little League field, if I'm correct, if I'm understanding things correctly.

And finally, with respect to uh family garden, and thank you, Oscar, for seeing me frantically raising my hand.

Um I wanted to know if that facility is unique in any or several respects, or in other words, um might other child care facilities qualify for such an exemption.

Thank you.

That takes care of my questions.

Um let's let's start with the back last one first.

Is Jennifer still here?

Jen it the question's not for the it's it's whether other daycares can apply.

So I've not experienced any other daycares applying for.

Um I uh am not sure if um they are nonprofits.

This one is um I haven't verified that, but they state that.

Um there reasons that I remember um from the last time when they came.

Um just I I'm assuming a uh difference is that they have the uh ability to take infants.

Um I've not experienced any.

I mean it's statutory issue, right?

It's not I mean if if another daycare met the criteria, they certainly could, correct?

Yeah, yes.

Yeah, thank you.

Sorry.

Um the other questions.

Um I'm not going to ask you your salaries.

I think if people want to know your salaries, they I'm if you don't mind.

I just thank you again for your help.

Absolutely.

Nice to meet you.

So hi, Zane again from NECA.

Um we're in a very unique position, and if somebody asked me my salary, I I normally wouldn't come forward with that.

But in this period of transition, um we are three-fifths of a five-person team that have been leading NECA for the last 13 months.

Um we were offered a contract that said you have all the accountability and all of the responsibility, but none of the compensation.

So we're still doing our original jobs, but on top of it, we're collectively managing the organization.

And we like to think of it, we're in startup mode right now.

It's not sustainable forever, but right now it's getting the bills paid and it's taking care of our employees and it's taking care of our students who we are uh loyal and committed to serve.

Thank you.

Uh I think there was a question in the middle.

Does anyone I think it was an observation that the Legion's statutorily exempt, but not the field.

And I think that's true.

Yeah.

Okay.

You mentioned that it's for RTM, but if the vote goes that RTM goes away, shouldn't we word it differently so that whatever entity there is takes the thank you, Heidi?

I'll just call town meeting.

Okay.

Uh let's see.

I'll read it again.

Uh to place an article on the Brataborough representative town meeting morning, or to place an article on the Brattaborough.

Yeah, town meeting warning.

Pardon me.

If if RTM is discontinued, you will have to warn the special town meeting, so it will not be on this meeting.

Okay, so I should read this as written.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

To place an article on the Brattaborough representative town meeting warning asking if the town will approve the exemption of the municipal tax portion of real estate taxes for the post-five American Legion baseball field, the family garden, and the New England Center for Circus Arts, NECA.

All select board members in favor of this motion, please raise your hand and say aye.

I that's five zero.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming in.

Uh let's see what's next.

Ah the approved FY27 general fund budget and capital plan.

Um let's let's ask John to present uh the proposed budget, and then we can all have a discussion.

Okay.

Um so I uh left your last meeting with direction to uh to try to bring back a budget that was under the six percent uh increase in um property tax the the need for property taxes uh because we had gotten it up to something like eight percent uh in our conversations at that meeting.

Uh I incorporated all of those changes that the board asked except for with uh two exceptions, which I'll talk about in a minute, uh, and worked with staff to find other savings and make other adjustments in the budget and have here a draft for your consideration to prove that would uh that would be a 4.7 percent increase in the property taxes from fiscal 26 to fiscal 27.

And let me explain how we got there.

Um so there is a list in your backup materials of the adjustments that were made to this version of the budget.

And the first thing is that we reduced the re the expected reimbursement revenue for EMS by 250,000, uh incorporated that into the revenues.

We um let's see that we made a number of workforce payroll and benefits updates uh to incorporate expected expected collective bargaining negotiation results uh as you directed us on January 12th and other updated projections due to personnel changes.

So if we knew of a longstanding person who was leaving, we we made some adjustments that uh recalculated the personnel cost at a uh starting uh starting wage.

Um capital.

We put uh we added 25,000 dollars back into the capital budget for retaining walls, bridges and culverts, and bicycle infrastructure, uh bringing these allocations back to a total of 240,000 in the and adjusted the capital plan.

So you'll see in your backup the capital plan has those put back in, which was another request or motion that you made at your January 12th meeting.

We uh incorporated the uh a finance director uh funds for to hire a finance director, uh also uh retained clerk hours here.

Um that was contrary to a motion that you made on uh January 12th, but uh upon further conversations with finance staff, they really think that this we we should add those clerk hours or we should keep those in.

Um the difference between the cost of the finance director and uh the current budget plus the increase remains in the professional services line if anyone is tracking it in detail.

Uh we allocated out the finance director's salary and benefits at 64 percent to general fund and the remaining 36 percent split equally between utility and parking, which is our best estimate of how the finance director spends their time.

Also from your January 12th meeting, we added uh 44,000 back into capital into the fire truck reserve, and if you'll recall that was to cover the cost of the HVAC um replacement backfilling that.

Uh we had since the November draft, we've gotten a contract from the town attorney and have recalculated that number and incorporated that into the um into the budget.

That was a difference of around $9,000, $9,000.

Um we have oh, this was a big blow that we received at like one o'clock yesterday afternoon.

Um we got our workers' compensation and liability insurance bill for 20 uh 2026, and it was about it was up about um 46 percent.

So um our current in our current year we're charged $381,000, and um for 2026, we've been billed $559,000.

So this is a $178,000 increase.

Um we have not had a chance to negotiate that or talk uh talk with um the LCT about it to see if there's any room for getting that down.

However, uh we do have an aging workforce.

We have reduced capacity um throughout the departments, and we have a lot of stress on our staff.

And um, you know, like it or not, we had some serious workers' comp injuries in the past year.

We had uh 16 medical claims, and seven of those resulted in long-term absences.

Every injury is uh reviewed by the safety committee and also reviewed with VLCT.

And those uh the those uh reviewers make uh recommendate recommended changes to uh reduce future risk, but some of the incidents that we had last year were were just flukes.

Um we are continuing to work on that, but again, we we do have an aging workforce and um hard work that people do.

That is the workers' competent liability.

So we incorporated that in with a projection for an increase also in the first six months of 2027 because that's the budget that we're working on.

We allocated out the life insurance by department.

That was no change in cost, but it just allocated it out as somebody requested when we were doing the budget reviews.

We incorporated the final Cigna employee health care insurance rates, which I think brought things down a little bit.

We did very well on the health insurance this year, as you know.

HRA fees and unemployment taxes were adjusted on uh new rates, so we negotiated that down and were able to save I I think seven or eight thousand dollars on that.

And we've moved that over to the human resources department because they uh that they have the direct relation to payroll.

Uh we eliminated the full-time position from the recreation and parks department as you requested, but um put in uh part-time position at 20 hours per week for your consideration.

We eliminated the part-time hours at the library, which I think was a savings of about 28,000, and um there were some other adjustments in the library budget due to personnel changes.

We reduced the overtime for the fire department by 45,000 at the fire chief's recommendation.

Um this was we believe with a fourth platoon that our needs for paramedic overtime will be reduced significantly.

Uh we increased revenues from interest income based on the movement of the funds that the board approved uh month or so ago, a couple months ago.

Uh we we are now just seeing much better interest and can um expect additional revenues there for the next year.

Uh one of the things that I had asked Bonnie Batchelder to do was to review our utility and parking fund interfund transfers because I noticed that those numbers were the same every year and um had been calculated some number of years ago.

So she broke down all of the internal calculations on the transfers between those funds and found um that we were off on uh how those were being allocated, and so there was an adjustment made based on that.

We've uh been having ongoing conversations with uh OpenGov and trying to reduce the costs of that software for us, and uh have uh have realized that we could uh eliminate uh a module on asset management that we just didn't have the capacity to um make full use of.

Um so that would that would be a savings of a little over 23,000 dollars.

Uh then I'm gonna uh I'm gonna talk about uh the last two, which were sort of the bigger some of the bigger savings that we we found.

First of all, um as I mentioned we have uh we have some changes in leadership at the police department and uh I had been looking for some significant savings in that budget, and so what we're going to do is um with the promotion of Assistant Chief Evans and Captain Petlock, uh we're going to leave the captain position unfunded.

So uh Captain Petlock's backfill will be left unfunded in this budget, and that will uh result in a savings of over 152,000.

Uh solid waste is the big one.

Um we made adjustments to services here, uh, which by eliminating the compost collection program.

Uh we decreased personnel by 2.5 positions and uh adjusted the revenues and associated costs with that.

This proposed budget also not only eliminates the compost program but also eliminates the curbside recycling collection in order to save approximately I think it's 572,000 around that.

The one thing that we're proposing is that instead of the curbside compost collection and the curbside recycling, is that we subsidize Brattleboro residents to go to the solid waste district by paying for half of the sticker cost for everyone in Brattleboro so that they can take for so for $30, they could get a sticker at the waste district and bring their recycling and compost to dispose of there for free.

So overall this would leave us in need of a $923,000 increase in the property taxes needed to balance the budget from the FY26, which is a 4.7% increase.

Everything else is, I think pretty much the same in the chart that I provided you, and then there's a copy of the budget and a copy of the capital, the new uh five-year capital plan, um, which should be also in your backup materials.

Um I would uh I know that the solid waste, I I am not that great at explaining the solid waste changes, and but we have Pete Lynch available, and if you have questions about what the thought was there, um be happy to call him up and ask him to step you through it.

I I think you should I think we should hear that you know all together so that then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Thank you, Pete.

Thank you for your work.

Thank you for being here.

Good evening.

Glad to be here this evening.

So back in November we talked about solid waste and we came forward with a proposal to you.

And um while it was a decrease from where we started in March, it was still a pretty large number.

And we were asked to go back and look at the solid waste budget again and determine if there was anything we could do to help uh with the tax increased situation.

So the proposal that we're coming to we to you tonight with is a little bit different than November.

And these are the differences.

So in the current proposal, um, we're gonna continue with the pay as you throw program as you understand it as of last week.

So last week at the meeting, you folks decided that you would change the bag prices, and so our current proposal with the numbers that John gave you is pay as you throw curbside pickup as you discussed last week.

And that's for a total of 4,388 possible users.

This proposal will discontinue curbside recycling and compost pickup during the fiscal year 27.

It'll reduce the current proposed budget by 577, 682,000 dollars.

It will reduce the capital purchases that we had hope to take out of the revolving loan fund by the number of three 366,000.

Now that isn't part of the budget that you're talking about tonight, but those are uh those are the numbers that would reduce us asking for you in terms of capital.

It'll reduce the proposed solid waste budget between when we started in March of 2025 and now by somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million dollars.

It'll reduce our contract fee with Casella and keep our contract at three years with them.

And they would be picking up one stream, and that would be trash.

Where half of the yearly sticker price at or the annual price at window solid waste for anybody to go in is $60 a person.

And we would the town would pick up uh half of that or $30 of each person's fee to get in for the year.

And then doing so, that would allow people to dump their recycling, to dump their compost, and also for anything else they wanted to do at window solid waste, such as take large items to dump that they wouldn't ordinarily be able to put on the curbside.

It would allow the system users the opportunity to decide in what way they'd like to dispose of their recycling, whether that be on their own at windham solid waste or with a private hauler.

It would do the same with compost.

It would allow them to choose backyard composting, it would allow them to choose window solid waste, it would allow them to make arrangements with the community groups and possibly even with farmers if they so choose without using tax dollars money.

It would maintain the relationship with windham solid waste that we have, and it is very strong right now.

It would give the users an opportunity if they chose to have a pass to both recycle and compost six days per week.

And currently the hours for recycling and composting at Windham Solid Waste, I hope I'm saying this right, our seven to three Monday through Friday and eight to one on Saturdays, and Window Cal Solid Waste has agreed to entering into conversations about extending their hours in order to be able to accommodate those users that choose to use it.

This proposal would also implement and enhance a strong education plan for both disposal of recycling and compost.

All along when we've been talking about solid waste and the three streams, one of our biggest goals is to reduce the amount going into our landfills.

And we feel it's we strongly feel it's important to stay on that path.

And so in this proposal, we would continue with a very strong education plan with the hopes to continue that.

It would create a committee to study and report back to you, the select board, with recommendations on how we move forward in FY28 with solid waste.

It would give us an additional six months to really look at the impact of doing curbside trash only before coming back to you to make a recommendation.

It would eliminate the need for us to purchase recycling carts, and it would eliminate the need for users to place the carts both at their residence and then on the street in specific spots.

It would continue with the downtown trash can program and the municipal dumpster collection program.

It would eliminate the need for a town-owned compost truck.

As John said earlier, it would reduce the proposed staffing from the November 18th meeting.

It would continue to enhance our downtown cleanup system.

It would continue to reinstate fall leaf collection, and we believe that it would meet the current town charter language.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Pete, let me let me ask some questions so that we can compare compare notes, for example.

So what if?

How much are we saving for each stream?

Like let's say we don't do the recycling.

How much does that save the household a household in taxes?

And how much would that person have to, or household have to pay for the service outside of it?

Like if someone wanted to have curbside recycling pick up on their own, how much would they pay versus how much does this reduce their taxes?

In terms of it's hard for me to speculate exactly how much I can give you numbers based on trash, but I think that would be speculative only.

I'm happy to take the time to look into that with private haulers to understand what their uh what the costs associated with with pickup for just recycling would be.

Um I feel pretty strongly it's available.

I don't have a number to give you.

And similarly for the other stream, the compost, do we know?

It would it would be the same answer, I'm sorry.

Same answer.

Okay.

So it's a judgment call on our part.

Um but so if we added right now, what we have is a budget with a 4.7 percent increase with both of those streams eliminated.

But so if we added right now, what we have is a budget with a 4.7 percent increase with both of those streams eliminated.

That's correct.

Um so if you put one back, what would the tax rate be?

If you put both back, what would the tax rate be?

So if if we um in terms of figures, if we put uh compost back in the budget, it would be 247 590,000 in your FY uh 27 tax, and if you put uh recycling back in, it would be about $61600,000 to put to put recycling back in.

And so that that would be the that would be the number for the tax rate.

But in addition to that, um you would be putting another $170,000 back in for those capital items that might come out of the revolving loan fund for adding compost back in, and you would be putting for recycling, you'd be putting in about the same amount of money if you were to take recycling back on.

And so do you know what these numbers or maybe John does?

I am really back of the envelope here.

But um for the first number that Pete mentioned, that would be about a 1.3 percent net tax impact, and for the second number around 3 percent, maybe 2.9.

So um if we are coming from a benchmark of a six percent increase.

You could have the recycling and still be under that amount?

Uh no.

Um, but not the compost.

Other way around.

Oh, the other way around.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh Oscar, do you want to?

Just a quick question about that.

Those are sort of the individual price tags.

If we add both back in, is it just adding those two numbers together?

And doing all three streams?

Yeah.

Um.

Um it would go back to our November 18th number total of about 108 million.

108 million?

I'm sorry.

No.

No.

That would be too much.

No, it isn't.

Let's try that again.

A total of 1,08,516.

And what's the what would that do you I am sorry to put you on the spot with all these numbers?

What would the change be from what we have in front of us?

Like plus how many hundreds of thousands.

Or just uh how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would go back into what we're looking at here to add in to go back to the original plan.

So if it's a cost savings and com if we just if we eliminate compost and recycling altogether, we're talking about a savings about $577,000.

Okay.

So it's just the opposite of that.

Yeah.

We would put $577 back in.

More or less.

Okay.

There in each of the two uh both compost and recycling, putting them back in.

There's some nuances that would make the number a little bit different, but not dramatically different.

And $577 is very, very approximately 3 percent on the tax rate.

Maybe a little less.

I would defer to John on that.

We could figure it out, but I hate doing public matter.

Yeah, sure.

But it's in the 3 percent ballpark.

I think so.

I I have a question for Pete.

Hello.

Hi.

I have a qu um so for our staff um staff cost of compost.

Is that wrapped into the 577?

So the So we have the capital costs with is there is there a way to isolate what that would be for just the first year, for example?

For yes, for which streamers for compost.

So for compost, um, if we put it back in, it would be a change of about 2020.

Um that would be two and a half people.

If that's your question?

So that would come out of the 247,900 number you quoted?

So staff cost would be approximately 200,000 out of the 247,900?

As right.

As compared to the the option we gave you with a 577 reduction.

So in the if we eliminate recycling and compost, we're talking about a position starting in January.

A half a position at 40,000.

If we put compost back in, we're uh talking about an addition of 2020.

And if we put recycling back in, we're talking about an addition of uh 40,000.

So for recycling, you'd be um you'd be funding one position for putting compost back in, you'd be funding three positions.

And for the elimination of both recycling and compost, there would be a half a position starting in January based on our needs in the downtown with cleanup.

And just going back to the recycling staff person, that's for maintenance of the carts.

That is true.

Exclusively maintenance of the carts or also overlapping with other DPW work.

So if both if compost is in as well, that position is meant uh to take care of any responsibilities related to carts.

It would also be the swing person for the compost truck during those times that one of the two that were assigned to it were not at work.

I think that's the I think it was a two-party question, and I'm not sure I answered the second part, but I don't remember what the second part was.

They're kind of blended.

The recycling, it sounds like the recycling cart fixing responsibility that you outlined in the solid waste plan is combined with compost staffing pickup that they're commingled in the current plan.

That that is true.

Okay.

Great.

Are there my gentlemen to my left?

Crazy amount of numbers going through my head.

Talk amongst yourselves.

I think not at the moment.

All right.

Um we can let Pete go and have a general discussion about the budget, and then among ourselves.

And then obviously the public wants to speak and then we'll talk again.

Does that sound good?

Just wait, or do you want to meet here?

Um because everything got changed when we restated everything.

Just the cost for the trucks.

Where is that for compost?

So you don't see any of the uh trucks in the FY27 budget.

Um those uh capital-related items, both carts and vehicles, um, were not budgeted in FY27 and were always um uh earmarked to come out of the revolving loan fund.

Or whether we were to ask to the for that amount of money to come out of the revolving loan fund.

Um Madam Chair, I have some correspondence from the public that was asked to be read on this topic on the budget specifically.

So I want to inquire with you the appropriate time to do that.

Um right now uh I'm I think we should talk among ourselves about the budget as a whole, and then uh and then we can when we open it up to comments.

I think that would be the time uh because comments are going to be on the budget and the and the solid waste.

So if people I mean, unless you all want to focus on the solid waste now and the overall budget later.

What what do you have a preference?

No preference.

As a board, it would be nice to hear what everyone wants.

If is everyone on board with just fine.

That's good.

They're not ready yet.

So um we could um hear from the public uh focusing on on solid waste.

We could hear from the public.

You could read your commentary from the public.

Okay.

And then we'll have a discussion about the budget as a whole.

Do you would it be appropriate to make a quick comment?

So well, I don't know.

I I just so the budget has the budget.

The public has some idea what we're thinking, or I tip your hat.

Well, see, the thing is I realized the other day that we've been talking about this for like a thousand hours, and I don't have a huge amount more to say, so I figure maybe we can tip our hats and then everyone will know where we're at.

But I defer to you.

Sure.

Uh if you would like to comment in general on the budget, which is probably where I was about a minute ago.

Feel free.

And so we can hear from any of us who want to talk about the budget, and then we'll open it up for all manner of comments, both budget and solid waste budget.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'm just gonna rip the band-aid off so we can talk about it.

Um I'm gonna keep it brief, and then if people want to know more, I will give you my reasons happily.

Um I think the with huge appreciation for uh the amount of work town staff has put in on a very quick time.

Um, in the fewest words possible, I think solid waste has to come back in.

I think I am fine with everything else on the list.

I think the 330K insurance thing from 1 p.m.

yesterday was a punch in the face out of nowhere without which we would be just under six with solid waste in.

I think we are reaching the limit of the things we can do to this budget that this board can find a majority agreement on.

And my current thinking for the public to chew on is put solid waste back in as it was before and keep everything else on this list and uh vote to approve the budget.

May I ask you a question?

Certainly.

Um so that would mean that you would be comfortable with a tax rate increase of say approximately seven seven point seven.

Is that right?

Three.

Yeah, I mean, I just had the experience early today of uh we talked about all the stuff that was in the universe of easy.

None of it was easy, and we found a couple points of agreement, and that was it.

The stuff we didn't talk about, we all left off the list because we didn't it it was more painful to consider.

Um insurance adjustment, and do I yeah, I I think beyond our control.

Beyond our control, and yes, we could do other things to get it down again, but to me I I just don't have too much more to say about this at a certain point.

If we retread the same ground over and over again for another six hours and another six hours we may just be I don't know, uh not making forward progress at that point.

And I think I don't know.

I I'm I'm not happy with it, but it's a budget, and it's a budget that plenty of people will dislike, but it's one I'm comfortable putting my name on and taking the town meeting with a straight face and going from there.

And that's where I'm at.

Okay, great.

Yes, I think so.

Anyone else?

Anyone else ready to oh did you call on Amanda?

I'm sorry.

I I looked at her, but I didn't see your smile.

Um I defer for the moment.

It's uh the floor is yours.

All right.

There we go.

Um so here's the thing.

I've said it before, I've said it again.

I get a tremendous amount of input.

Majority of it verbal.

All right.

It it and and when somebody comes up to me and and talks to me, um, I intend to let that voice be heard.

Um, whether it was sent to me via text message or sent to me via uh email.

90% of my conversations today were uh face to face over the phone.

I tried to keep notes about what was said.

Most of it is leaning on uh solid waste.

Um human services budget versus municipal budget.

You'd better take the municipal budget.

That was one.

I'm old, I don't drive, I have no options was another.

I can't imagine Brattleboro without it.

That's another.

It would walk us backwards.

I don't drive.

Illegal dumping.

If we eliminate human services, you could get recycling for free.

Uh this is going to hurt the poorest.

Isn't the point of municipal government to lever level the playing field?

I support all the charities I want to support.

I resent being forced to donate for something I don't get and lose something I do get.

It seems like the people who are advocating to get rid of it are the very ones who can afford it.

So these are some of the these are some of the comments that I receive today.

Again, face to face and over the phone.

We have to cut a budget.

I agree with everybody who said to me, um, if we're picking between human services budget and municipal budget, I think it is our job, the five of us to hold up the municipal budget.

So later on in the meeting, I will be making a proposal that will target the human services budget.

Um that could, should we get enough nods at this table, level that playing field and at least get us down to a more manageable number.

It's it's not nice, but I am just referring to everything that I have heard today.

None of it, absolutely none of it, was in support of getting rid of curbside and and recycling compost and trash pickup.

Isaac would you wish to comment?

I heard very similar things to what Peter just shared.

Um today we had a gathering at the senior center.

I had a gathering for the library that some of you had come to and at other community spaces.

Um have a Zoom to talk about trash, to talk about the budget, and there has been widespread concern about the idea of eliminating entire service that members of the community depend on.

That said, I want to talk a little bit more generally about the budget, which is that there are some things in this most recent version that you've shared with us, John, that move us towards financial greater financial responsibility.

We had a unanimous vote in support of restoring the finance director position, for example.

We have this 25 capital equipment replacement plan.

The um the um I mean just the fact that we had uh the consultant in this last year is a step.

The finance financial consultant is a step forward.

I can see improvements with some of the reporting.

So um and we've also put back the infrastructure that funding for infrastructure for our road for our bridges, retaining walls, bicycles.

It's an investment in the future.

Um not comfortable with a 7.7% increase in the property tax municipal part of the property taxes.

That's too high.

People don't want to lose an entire service, but they also don't want to be priced out of their homes.

We heard a really comp really compelling story from Neil Manders last uh last week.

And he talked about how the he wants to be able to leave his house to his child, who actually grew up with, and she wants to build, you know, she the property taxes on his home is uh a quarter of what her uh her income is, which is about the median income in Brattleboro.

And for someone to work really hard their whole life to be able to build up, you know, to be able to afford a house, which isn't so easy these days, and then to have to spend so much money on the taxes, that's hard.

Um so I um you know I was pleased that we were able to decide in our last meeting that we weren't gonna add positions.

You know, there were several areas where we said, no, we're not gonna add um positions that we haven't, you know, restore the finance director position, but we're not gonna add this these additions, and some of that has been eroded in this in this budget.

Um that's that's where my current thinking is to summarize.

There are some improvements with the financial responsibility, 7.7% increase.

There are some improvements with the financial responsibility, 7.7% increase um in fact is too much, and we need to look at other ways of reductions besides losing an entire service.

Thanks.

Are you ready, Amanda?

Um, sure.

Thank you.

Well, board members, it was nice to hear your thoughts.

Um I too am not satisfied with this budget.

Um I share the concerns that Isaac just brought up of um positions that we had agreed to remove that are um I I agree that we removed one and then refunded uh or didn't refund, but got creative and made a part-time position for Park and Rex.

I think that's great, the 20-hour position, but I questioned the um the clerk position because we did remove that.

Um I realize that's a hardship for our departments.

I realize it could mean service uh changes for the public.

Uh perhaps the office needs to be closed a day, etc.

Understandable.

Uh we are at a time where we have to make sacrifices, and I ask the board to fight with me for affordability for the town of Brattleboro for the low-income members of our community and the middle income members of our community, for the working members of community.

We have to have a tax rate that is affordable, and it means rolling up our sleeves and making some hard decisions.

I did receive some correspondence as well about the solid waste um situation, and they differed.

They were they came from many different opinions.

Um I've said it before, and I'm gonna say it again.

If our board chooses to change our solid waste program that we had nearly gone with, and then I swerved it, um, and others.

Um it is an economic opportunity.

We are struggling in Brattleboro to have jobs.

We are struggling in Brattleboro to get entrepreneurial projects off, and this is an opportunity.

And so I see it not as a lack of service, but as a real possible opportunity.

I had a great conversation with Adam Grinnault of the BDCC because they were brought up recently about financing or a pitch contest related to say one of the streams.

Um, if not all the streams.

Um idea, my understanding since I've lived in Vermont for 34 years, Brattleboro for 30 of those years, is that we help each other.

That we get our neighbor and say, hey, could you help me with my trash and bring it to Solid Waste District?

Or we gather together as a neighborhood, and we say, Hey, Randy, you have a truck.

Could you help me out?

You know, that's how we work, and that's how we save money.

It is possible even in Brattleboro.

We are Vermont, right?

We are one of I think there's maybe I don't even know how many communities.

Four, five communities in the entire state that have curbside pickup.

They're all alternatives.

So I have a feeling I'm gonna be voted out in this vote, right?

But I want you to know where I stand and what I believe in.

So join me if you feel like it.

Ookie dookie.

Thank you.

So um I just I I just think context is important, and I want to get back to the beginning of this select board year and talk a little bit, if you'll indulge me about how did we get here?

And and um, you know, I I think we had this rapid review in um April and May, because RTM voted out our budget.

And um what we did then, and all those meetings that we had and all that um intensive discussion uh on the budget was really um uh not the normal order.

And and um, you know, I I think we had this rapid review in um April and May, because RTM voted out our budget, and um what we did then and all those meetings that we had and all that um intensive discussion uh on the budget was really um uh not the normal order, and our many of us recognized that we needed to start talking about the budget early and often, and you know, it was discussed that we would begin in September, and we did and uh the town manager presented his budget in November, and we had department heads come in November and December, and they talked about their budgets, and they talked about the services they provide, and they talked about uh their manpower and staffing, and and um they didn't receive a lot of feedback, and um and I think that's a shame because uh now we're scrambling again, and it's hard, it's hard on all of us, it's hard on the town.

Um and I I just I would just hope that we could get back to a place where we can discuss the budget without a lot of brinkmanship, and and um really discuss it in in a reasonable way.

And what it boils down to for me was that last week we came in on Tuesday with a 4.4% increase and left on Thursday with an eight percent increase, and then uh the suggestion for across the board cuts, and that was a really dramatic.

Uh and you know, we heard testimony from our department heads about what that would actually mean.

And and even before that, uh, you know, in the in the list of things that certain members wanted to bring to the fore, there was a suggestion of a of a $300,000 cut to the police department, and um that was on unsettling to me.

Um because that's the heart of our town.

Um we talked about Chief Hardy and the work that she's done and and the the way that she's transformed the department in light of community safety uh discussion.

Uh she's you know, the Bratt team, the downtown public safety team is essential to our town.

And um so when faced with the choice of cuts to solid waste or or cuts to the police department and and uh fire department and rec department, uh I'll pick solid waste, but I do not support a cut to solid waste because what Brattleboro's had for the past decade is a commitment to the environment with pay as you throw.

And the beauty of pay as you throw is it's three prongs.

It's curbside trash collection with the bags, and the bags have a cost to uh reduce the garbage stream, and and that is really only effective if you have recycling and compost with it.

And so we've had we've had 10 years of our town participating, 10 years of our town with a real environmental commitment, and and um I'm not giving up on that that promise, that expectation, not only it's it's not just convenience, it's it's the equity and the sustainability that's inherent in the pay as you throw system.

And we've had you know such heartfelt discussions, but last year, you know, there was an uproar when even curtailing the hours of the sustainability coordinator was contemplated, and such a hue and cry about sustainability when this is so much more important to our sustainable actions as a town.

And so I would like to see what we can do to restore those three streams to our budget.

And if and if Peter says, you know, let's work on the human services budget and and um recognize that you know charity begins at home.

And if if something has to go, um I want to keep both the solid waste and and our first responder budget in the budget and uh see what tax rate that would render for our community um shall we hear from the public?

I would you it may be extensive.

How would you feel about an 8 p.m.

recess?

Oh what a good idea.

Let's recess for until 10 after 8.

Thank you.

Um I think everyone from the select board who wanted to make their initial comments has.

And so we'll open it up to the public.

Um let's start with Eric.

I don't want to knock the microphone flying.

Getting closer?

Got it.

Um Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I have two things I want to talk about.

One is a motions that were made here and passed, and the other is I want to talk trash.

Um so about the motions, I just need a little clarification.

I I was sitting here and I heard I thought a motion for a um the finance director to be added to the budget, but I did not hear a motion for a finance director and a half time position.

And the motion I thought was passed was for that, only for the finance director.

I also heard a discussion, I think, around that, where it was said, well, there's an uh now that you passed that, there's enough money I can put a half position in from John Potter.

And I thought I heard the board not accept that.

That goes to the second motion I needed clarity on.

I thought I heard a motion pass um that said we would not be adding the three new positions of halftime library, the full or half-time recon, and um the clerk, the finance clerk.

I did I remember and I could be wrong, but I heard it asked that the plea or you know request from the rec center be changed to a half person may be added.

But I my memory said it wasn't not amended, maybe I'm wrong.

But now in this budget, it's as if those motions never happened.

And I just thought it was interesting, or I don't understand the process that there are two motions, but now they are vastly different than they actually were passed as, and I don't know how that's dealt with in your budget process, because it would actually be quite a savings if the motions were maintained as they were, and those positions that were involved on to not be added back in as new positions were or or remained, whatever, would be removed.

Shall I stop there and then we do my second?

I don't know if you guys just want to let you know.

Yeah, let me let me answer that in John's commentary, he asked the select board to revisit those positions.

The one the $20,000 for the rec person and the I don't know how much for the half-time finance clerk uh because he and his finance staff thought it was very important to have that position, and so they are requesting that the select board revisit those two positions.

So that would be a revisiting of that motion similar to what we had happened before with the bad.

I think it would be most likely a whole new motion.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for that.

I I appreciate it.

Um I would like to state though that I I thought the they were cut public commentaries on my own opinion that those were good motions, would love to see them stand personally.

Um the other is that the the ha I just think it's interesting to note that the halftime position, if I'm understanding right for the rec center, is almost identical to the price of fireworks.

And I was just thinking, since we're in a financial crisis in many of our opinion, it might be nice to pick one but not both.

You know, do we need one-time fireworks or do we need a full-time, you know, a full half, you know, year-long half person?

Might be nice to do a little little budgetary thinking there.

Uh okay.

Can I talk trash now?

Uh no, because your two minutes is up.

Why don't you speak again at trash?

When do you want okay?

This is not the time then for that trash discussion.

Um I mean, I it could be, but your your your time is going up, not down.

Thank you.

Just want to point out that I've now been at this board meeting as it's been extended for 13 hours as a patient participant, and I've listened to you speak after many, many, many more hours than me.

I can't.

And asking for two minutes to talk about the topic on hand is not inappropriate, and I recommend you please be considerate and give me my two minutes.

Here's the thing, Eric.

I'd be happy to let you speak again.

But I I want to respect the fact that we've had meetings until midnight.

And so what I'm going to ask you to do is to speak again after people's initial two minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dick.

I think what Eric was asking is a point of order about the motion that was made to cut three positions, and then all of a sudden you voted to, and nobody made a motion here to reconsider those positions.

And so, how did you get a position in a halfback?

So when I'm done, uh if the attorney uh town attorney can answer that question, that wouldn't be great.

Uh the thing I talked about in public participation was Bobby Fisher's contract.

Uh you voted under uh it under consent agenda.

It has a five and a half percent increase.

And nobody even raised the question about that to pull it and talk about it.

I love Bobby uh very much.

He was a tenant in my building.

But does he deserve a five and a half percent increase?

Not one of you up there questioned it.

John, your numbers are wrong.

Uh for you, I think you said you had through 439,000 from the enterprise fund.

That was 54,000 and then 385,000, which gave you 439.

If you actually look in this current budget, budget to actuals, it's actually 52,000 from the parking fund and 396 from wastewater for four uh for 448,000.

And then when you add your increases in of 120 uh from wastewater and 12 and a half from parking, that number is 578,0500.

Uh so you should check that.

I think I'm correct.

I checked it four times.

Uh I can see where you might have got confused.

Uh I did, that's why I kept going back to check it.

Madam Chairwoman, you talked about your statement that you made the other day about uh uh what you proposed, but that was with a cost shift of having an article question uh of uh the sidewalks and the roof having that separate.

I certainly uh uh said at that meeting that I felt that that was part of the regular maintenance.

Uh you guys are in a tough spot, but uh I I think I'm hoping to get an answer about uh about the two things I just brought up to John and the the question about a motion to reconsider to put the positions back in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh hands, Randy.

Hi, Randy Blodge at District 7.

Um I just feel like it's groundhog day.

We're back to last year.

Excuse me for just a minute.

Sorry, Randy.

Um do any of Dick's questions have an answer.

Do we want to respond to those at the later?

Okay.

We'll respond to them at the end.

Um I just feel like we're back to you know the last two budget discussions back in December, January, and then I don't know if you all remember April and May, I do.

Um and hard to forget.

You know, I really don't understand how we're back to where we started at.

And I urge you to get anywhere near the cost of inflation.

Our trend is 10 million dollars more than the 2018 budget for the bottom line approaching.

We can't keep doing this.

The cost of living in this town, you know, we you solid waste great.

I value everyone's opinion.

But if you ask them that question and you say, Oh, our taxes are gonna now be eight percent, it might change a little.

Not for everybody, I realize that.

But we need to when we're asking people something to give them, hey, this is where we're at.

And we keep flip-flopping around, and and we we need to find the right spot.

I get that.

But we need to, you know, we need to think out of the box, and we need to do better.

And I I do commend the town staff and John for hey, there's a lot of things that I wasn't expecting, and thank you.

But um we still need to get this down.

And I I like what I'm hearing from Peter and Isaac and Amanda.

Oscar, I understand why you went where you went, and I appreciate you telling us.

And Liz, hey, you fight for what you believe in.

But somehow now it's a board.

We got to work together and we got to do better.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Well, you're the people online.

Starting with uh Darren Mark.

Hey there.

I'm Darren.

Um I live on Montostiget Drive.

I've lived here for close to 20 years.

This is my first select board meeting, so I hope I'm doing this right.

Um I strongly oppose the elimination of curbside recycling and compost collection.

Um if my numbers are right, my back of the napkin math.

The proposed budget cuts a net of around a hundred eight hundred and fifty thousand for solid waste after you allow for the 148,000 on new sticker fees for the solid waste district.

And I checked the grand list, assuming 5,000 dwelling units, this saves the budget only 212 per household per year, which is roughly $4 a week.

I looked at my taxes.

Um the 3% would cost me an extra $90 a year.

So a five to ten mile round trip costs roughly $670 in gas and wear based on the IRS reimbursement rates.

30 minutes of my time is worth far more than the $4 I'd essentially save.

And I feel like it's a false economy that shifts costs onto families.

It's going to increase traffic and pollution, it's going to hurt seniors who can't drive.

Um I think we really have to look at the unintended consequences.

Replacing one fleet truck with thousands of individual resident car trips will drop drastically increase roadware and traffic.

It's going to hurt my neighbors.

There, I have you know, many widows in their 80s on my block.

And Amanda, I respect your position that you know we're Vermonters will band together.

It will be me probably hauling the trash for all of my neighbors, and I really don't want to do that.

Yeah, exactly.

And you know, his illegal dumping historically increases based on studies.

You know, the cliff over my house, you know, there's so much garbage embedded in that cliff.

The Hogel Nature Reserve, you know, I I spend hours cleaning up the garbage there.

I request the board amend the budget motion to restore funding for curbside recycling and compost.

I I would recommend looking at shifting to a bi-weekly schedule where you could save half without canceling.

That would significantly reduce the contract cost, and you could get rid of the need for the new sticker fee expense.

And if you're really serious about this, commission an impact study on the true cost of self-hauling before dismantling a core utility.

To me, it's it's just irresponsible to get rid of this before weighing all of the unintended consequences.

So I urge you again to vote no on this cut and instead please uh implore you to look at adopting a bi-weekly collection schedule.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, um Bob Spencer is available by Zoom if for interrogation.

I'd love it if he called in to weigh in as well on some of the things that that Darren was asking about or questions.

I think Darren's questions are more to um the options that we have.

Um let's hear from Tom Franks.

Good day, Tom.

Good evening, Tom Franks.

Um lower my hand.

I just had one question.

Um I'm doing a home repair.

Apologize for the mess.

Um when we were talking about this potential savings from cancer uh discontinuing uh services, I went back and looked at the presentation that the board received in November, I believe, or early December, on the cost of recycling, and I had 348,005 555 for collection, 256 500 for disposal and then cart maintenance at uh 97 and smeared because I'm working with water, and I ended up with a total of 703,000 30 dollars.

So I was wondering why the savings from discontinuing both recycling and compost were only 500, so I a little clarity on that.

I'm sure I missed something.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll ask Pete those questions.

Let's hear from uh David.

Thank you, David Love, District 9.

Um just a couple observations on the uh waste management issue.

If uh I'm going to, and this is not this is I'm not the only one who's had this thought.

If I'm going to be taking uh and recycling to the uh dump, it's not that difficult then to take a bag as well.

But beyond that, uh I think the change will reduce the rate of composting and recycling in town.

Um that has some environmental impact, so I recognize there's some debate about uh uh the efficacy of recycling and composting uh in terms of things being mixed in that can't be shouldn't be mixed in.

Uh but beyond that, I'll also say that uh this would increase the tipping fees for trash if people move stuff from composting recycling into trash.

Um the other hand, I think this would also eliminate our tipping fees for recycling and compost.

Uh and then finally, um oddly this might increase your bag revenue.

So these are just some observations.

Thank you.

Ah, yes, it's a process.

Are there more, Jim?

And then Eric will we'll hear you again.

Okay.

The elimination of responsible solid waste management funding in this budget is irresponsible.

As I and others have pointed out, removing this funding from the municipal budget will not remove the cost of waste disposal from the household and business budgets of the people of this town.

And it will absolutely guarantee that it will cost us even more, all paying individually with no chance of economies of scale.

Responsible waste management is not merely a convenient option.

It's our first responsibility to the environment, to the very land that we hold that constitutes our our basis as a community as a town.

Waste management, in my opinion, comes before police and fire in importance, and that is why responsible communities institute entire departments of sanitation in their municipal governments.

Waste management is also not just a service offered by government to individual or particular beneficiaries.

It directly serves the general public health, public safety, and public order for all by ensuring that waste is properly handled in relatively anonymous and impartial manner, free of barriers and friction that might deter responsible waste disposal.

I don't know why it seems to be so difficult to understand that people do not want the dignity of their lives dependent upon the possibly arbitrary goodwill of their neighbors, or to feel embarrassed that they have to beg their neighbors for help.

Perhaps people who have not lived in diverse populations who do not have the experience of being marginalized in their own communities, perhaps that is why they are so glib about the idea of being forced to ask others who are unlike them for help.

Instead of being able to rely on being treated equally by government services that are provided to all equitably at the curbside without need for personal interaction or approval.

I also don't know why it seems to be so difficult to understand that subsidies that require people to prove their eligibility will inevitably result in many people in the greatest need not receiving those supposed subsidies.

They will not apply for them because they do not want to draw attention to themselves.

The inevitable consequences of discontinuing responsible municipal waste management funding will be an increase in improper and illegal dumping, trash nuisances, attraction of pests and vermins, and a loss of quality of life that will not only frustrate current residents, but deter potential future residents at a time when our first priority should be attracting new residents to boost our economy and expand our tax base.

Fifty, six hundred households individually driving their trash to one dump in town is not an environmental strategy.

It is an environmental disaster.

Fully one-third of Americans cannot drive.

I'm one of those people.

I do not have a car.

The idea that somehow, some way private you're over time, sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you to the tech team.

Yeah.

That's not gonna work.

Whatever.

Susan Dalvell Brattleboro.

Um I wrote emails to Oscar Amanda and I sent one to Peter.

And in that I laid out an idea about why it's important that we try to shift responsibility for trash and garbage and recycling over to taxpayer taxpayers and residents of Brattleboro.

The one that is most impressive for me is the impact it has on the emergency services.

We're so trash and recycling and composting is a fixable solution.

It is not dependent on everybody transporting their stuff to the dump themselves or to any other facility themselves.

They can hire it out.

They can work as a cooperative to try to get it taken care of.

But what we don't have options for is access to emergency services.

Those budgets, as well as roads and sidewalks, those budgets have been either cut or level funded with no significant improvement to improve the functionality of the municipality.

That when I call the police department today over an issue that was occurring on Elliott Street, I'm not laying blame on anybody.

I am not saying this is that somebody was being irresponsible.

What I'm saying is I was told that they couldn't respond to the issue that I had because they were too busy with other emergencies.

If I have a heart attack in my home and I need emergency services, or I have someone breaking into my home, and I need emergency services, I don't want to be told that they don't have the resources available to come take care of my needs.

It's not just me, it's my neighbors, it's my friends, it's my family.

For this for trash to take such a priority over emergency services and roads and sidewalks, is beyond my understanding of what this community is supposed to be about.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Thank you.

Thank you, Dick.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

Um it's not my first select board meeting.

And I've been thinking a lot about this.

And I think there's actually as there is for most things, there's more than one right answer.

But in this situation, the those right answers are very separate, very different.

I would like to thank all of you, everyone that spoke here.

I agree with some piece of almost everything somebody said.

Amanda, your strength in saying that we can do without this and save our town money.

It to me this was a low-hanging fruit.

It will make some hardships, but I'm the non-driver senior citizen, can't do it myself guy that people are so worried about, and I say go for it.

Okay, we can I can make I can figure out how to get my trash, compost, and recycling there.

However, however, if we are gonna do this service, we can't do it part way.

We have to either do all streams or none, or it doesn't work.

I I think a lot of you understand that.

If we rip it apart into little pieces and pick this one thing we care about or just do trash and give that to Casella to do, then I basically our recycling and compost for a lot of people is gonna end up in the trash.

We know that.

And the biggest problem is the recycling.

That huge bin.

I we know I've talked to the people that are on this that understand this plan.

That bin is not something you can supervise.

Anyone who wants to can put their trash, their compost, their mother-in-law, and even Daniel Kip in that bin, and it's gone.

They're not gonna see it.

Okay.

So that's how those plastic bins are gonna work.

And then if we buy them, we're stuck with them, and they're so big that if we have our town service take over, then they can't, they're stuck with those arms.

Okay, and that plastic bin.

So next thing is, well, is there a solution?

Yeah, I know the solution.

And and Peter Lynch is gonna hate me, absolutely hate me for saying this.

But if you either A don't do it, like Amanda said, and thank goodness our town will will be healthier, or do it right, do it all.

But I'm sorry, not just compost, but the the old recycled bins that we already have that you can see in, and our own people with their trucks from from the Department of Public Works.

I'm sorry, guys, this is so hard to plan now and do it.

But you pick up that trash, you pay for those employees, you buy those trucks, and you do it, because we trust you, and we know you're honorable, and we know you'll give us the best possible deal you can and deal you can.

And we'll have trucks.

You know what trash trucks can do?

They can pull trailers.

And you know it can be on trailers if you have if you set it up.

There could be trailers with with uh road equipment for emergencies.

We'll even have extra people that you may have to say to us someday, you're not getting trash pickup.

But those those those Department of Public Works people are now fixing a retaining wall emergency over there, so you'll have to wait two days.

We have more resiliency in our in our community.

We have less expensive stuff, we're not paying for a monopoly, and we get all of our services.

But poor Peter Lynch, I'm sorry.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

Uh Bethany.

Hi, Bethany.

Hi, Bethany Marks, parents of Brattleboro residents.

Um I um uh just curious about a couple things.

Um I don't know.

I was at a different board meeting before.

It might have been brought up, I don't think it was.

Um, so I apologize if it was.

Um I'm curious, um, two things.

One, I wanted to make sure that it was um out there and known that the Brattleboro Compost Program, um, the curbside compost program was actually a pilot that was um like pretty huge pioneering program when it began in 2012, and many other municipalities actually looked at us and said, wow, that's awesome.

How do you do it?

Um so it feels really disappointing to consider that we might be looking at changing it.

I'm uh really kind of flabbergasted by even the concept of bringing that up.

And I think it's already been spoken to the um issue of equality and whatnot.

But my other question was um I haven't yet seen, and again, forgive me if it is out there and I missed it.

Haven't seen current data um in about um the amount of um I know that Bob Spencer um pretty regularly has information about the amount of like tons of um trash versus recycling versus compost that is processed at winning them solid waste.

Um I didn't very quickly have that information, I couldn't really quickly find that information before speaking this evening, but I'd be really curious to know what that um what those numbers are because um I think pretty drastically and quickly we would see those change if um people were not able to access the recycling and compost.

But if you look at some of the previous numbers from um that he has put out, um you can see a pretty significant increase in the amount of recycling and composting that has happened since the curbside compost became a thing.

Um and I would really love to know um what that trend and what those numbers look like at this point.

Thanks.

Thank you, Bethany.

Okay.

Um more bite at the apple for you two.

Gemma first.

I have a member, uh a statement.

The member of the member of the public wanted me to read as well.

Oh, yes.

Those do go ahead.

I want to do that.

And also Bob Spencer is on Zoom if he's open to be interrogated, but I'm not sure if he's gonna call in.

Oh, she he said, how do I speak?

Please ask.

Um, you raise your hand in the Zoom.

He might not understand how to do that.

You raise your hand in the Zoom and then Seth will call on you from our meeting, Bob.

Um, well, they're figuring it out or not.

I will read a statement that was sent to the several statements to read.

Do you not?

I actually um one of the individuals called in and did it himself.

Okay, big.

Um that was Darren Mark.

Um and this is a transcript of a voice memo.

So I'll see what how I do.

This is from Arthur Davis.

Hello, this is Arthur Davis, District 8 in Brattleboro.

I would like to take a moment, I would like to talk a moment about the proposal to get rid of curbside compost and recycling and keep curbside trash collection.

I believe that this would incentivize citizens of Brattleboro in exactly the wrong ways in terms of what is convenient to do with their solid waste.

Right now, people have us have us have an incentive to compost and recycle because they don't have to buy bags for those for that stream of solid waste.

In another proposal that's being said, if we get rid of trash and recycling but keep compost, people would still be incentivized to compost from a convenience factor because it would be picked up on their street weekly, and they would also be incentivized to recycle if they brought to the dump because recycling at the transfer station would be free after the purchase of half a sticker.

Um, but they would already be going there to deal with their trash in this scenario where people have curbside collection but do not have curbside recycling or compost.

The easiest, most convenient way to deal with that is to put more things in your trash.

Because it's going sorry, this is a transcript from an audio.

Picked up either way.

I'm okay.

So concerns about deincentivizing compost.

I'm pro keeping the compost.

People hauling recycling and trash.

That's it.

From Arthur.

That's it.

You didn't have that's it anymore?

That was yeah.

Then let's hear from Gemma and then from Dick.

Oh, and there's Bob.

Gemma Seymour again.

Uh just to finish up on what I was saying before.

Uh the idea that somehow, some way private entrepreneurialism will save the day is also not a viable strategy.

And it's inherently an environmental nightmare.

Rather than a handful of trucks on the streets, you would have us have dozens on the street, each serving a tiny number of people.

It's a recipe for gross inefficiency.

Even if it could save the day, I've been a business owner.

That day will not be any time in the near future.

It takes lead time to build a company, as anyone who has actually built a company from scratch understands.

Okay.

I am in agreement with Eric that this ultimately should be a municipal department.

Um again, not something that can happen overnight, something that we need to plan for in the future, and I would like the select board to do that.

But I would also like to address Susan Belleville's concerns that in no way am I suggesting that waste management should preclude funding police or fire or ambulance or anything else.

My parents are medical professionals.

My grandfather was an FDNY battalion chief.

Two members of my family are lifelong and New York City Department of Sanitation uh members.

Um we need all of these things.

They, you know, I as I said, waste management, I think comes first, but it's not the only priority.

All of those things are important to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dick.

Uh question for for John again.

John, there's a uh 123,000 transfer in.

It's the last transfer in, and it's the number associated with it is 49025.

And I have no idea uh what it is.

It's that last transfer number to come in, if you can just tell me what that is.

And the other thing I just want to say is that I looked at, and I support the finance director, but there's only there's two of you here that are gonna be guaranteed seats for next year.

And that's a huge shift of 120,000 to put into the uh solid waste or to uh water and sewer, and to fund the uh finance director in that position.

And you haven't approved that budget yet.

So you approve that in uh late May, early June, and you're gonna go, well, hey, remember what you did back in January.

And that's a huge huge concern of mine, because I don't have two pockets of money.

I only have one.

And that and that that budget and taking that much money from that enterprise fund and sticking it in to pay for uh that position, uh I'm really concerned about the equation.

But that's a huge, huge number uh to fund positions.

We did it last year with the uh I I think it was you, madam chairwoman.

The uh energy coordinator is now being paid for uh 50 percent by that.

And that's a huge concern of mine is just shifting, shifting responsibility from what the town should be paying for, and I and we should be the water and sewer, but I think it's a it's a really high, high number, and I'm concerned, and I would get with John to tell me how you got to that equation because five hundred and sixteen thousand dollars a year is a huge number for accounting services.

Um there's a number of questions that do asked about transfers.

Uh first I just want to say that that uh Stephen Dotson actually is doing work in two separate departments.

So it's um it's not just a transfer of funding mechanisms, but it's actually the work that he does.

Um, do you want to discuss not only what Dick just brought up, but his earlier uh discussion about transfers from utility and parking?

Yeah, I was just searching for the breakdown that Bonnie did on that.

Um I couldn't find it in my email just searching while we're talking.

Um, but uh yeah, I mean she looked at all all the how people were spending their time and uh we felt like that the general fund shouldn't be paying for doing utility work or parking work, and so that's what these numbers are based on was that analysis.

Um I can find that and share that if if people want to see it.

I can show you.

Well, where I got to I don't think you have the same is I looked at the numbers, and you're gonna be looking at the last agenda item about the budget review.

That's where I got those numbers of 52, and 396, and your numbers were 54 and 385.

So there's a discrepancy there that I went just by the numbers that you're gonna review in a little bit.

I can show you if you want.

If not, I'll show you where you're talking.

Let's look at it.

Yep.

All right.

Um's on Zoom.

Pardon me?

Someone's on Zoom.

Bob Spencer from the Waste District.

Uh Bob Spencer, uh, I guess you're being interrogated.

Amanda, do you want to frame the questions that you have for Bob?

The the previous caller, um I remiss in remembering her name, had some specific questions about data that you Bethany.

Bethany that you gathered from uh diverting organics from the waste stream.

Uh yeah, Bethany, that was very uh complimentary what you said, thank you to our program.

Um actually um Bob.

Can you hear me now?

How's that?

Who want to hear every word?

Yeah.

Is that good now?

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

Um Pete Pete uh has the current numbers for each of those streams.

Command all.

Okay.

Do we have a point of clarity?

Is he talking about just the transfer station or the town of Briattle?

I'm trying to try to understand.

I believe that Mr.

Spencer is talking about the Solid Waste Management District in its entirety, and not the town of Brattleboro specifically.

But uh let's interrogate Mr.

Lynch to see if he has numbers about that stream from his years-long detailed analysis of the trash collection system in the town of Brattleboro.

I couldn't hear Bob at all.

Um and so the question was what?

Um Bethany had asked a question about um the breakdown of the various waste streams and um you know, trash recycling compost.

And I guess specifically for the solid waste management district, but then when we inquired that of Bob, Bob said that you had the that information.

So if you could enlighten us.

I'd be happy to.

So um I'd like to do it by tonnage if I could.

And so monthly, the average ton tonnage that is disposed of for trash is about 59 tons.

Recycling is 60 tons, and compost is 46.

And in terms of percentage, that represents um 35.3 percent of what we put in the stream is trash or in a facility is trash.

36 is recycling, and 28.7 is compost.

That those statistics statistics, I'm sorry, are specifically for Brattleboro.

And they're based on our on our disposal numbers.

Great.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Pete.

Um, so um I think we've heard about everything from the public.

I just have a question for John, and that is uh, you know, there was a lot of horse trading earlier.

Um, do you think you could tell us what the approximate tax rate of increase would be if we added the two streams back and we took out we zeroed out human services?

Um yeah, I think just again, really back of the envelope and don't quote me on this, but uh I would say you're in the six and a half percent neighborhood for that.

Okay.

Yes, Jackie.

Uh Jackie Reese, uh District 9 rep.

I just want to reiterate again, and if you're going to talk about the difference in the percentages before and after or with or without, could you put it into terms of how much that is a year per 100,000?

Because I don't understand percentage.

I do understand what it means to me, and and and what the um the guy from Wantastic hit brought up, I thought was perfect.

I mean, we're talking about uh so much less per year, you know, and if I'm gonna be paying 60 or even 30 dollars just to go to the dump that you know.

Um, and then the other thing that I'd like clarity on is uh what what was it?

Um, it's gone.

But that's that's basically, you know.

Oh, yes, sorry.

Thank you, Peter, looking at you.

I'm hoping to hear what your idea is going to be about because I don't hear anything in here, and I haven't heard anything in any of these discussions in the last couple of meetings that I've been out about reducing the um the um public service, human service, human services, sorry, thank you very much.

Uh you know, I mean the I I think that that's that's a legitimate piece to look at because again, you know, as someone said, charity begins at home.

And that and when and you're giving charity from home, you have control over what that charity is and who it's going to and what they're doing with it.

Thanks.

So you want to answer that?

Well, I can I can I can tell you what my strategy is.

Please do.

Yeah.

Um my strategy is to make three separate motions this evening.

Um the first of which is that uh, and I I don't know, I'm just gonna talk about them and then we'll make them, okay.

Um, is that we uh move to add back in the two streams of solid waste recycling compost to its previous status where it was uh before this this last.

Um I also plan to make a motion that uh we that we add the part-time parks and rec person and the part-time uh finance position into our budget.

Um and then my third motion uh will be to uh that that I'll move that the amount allocated to the human services budget of 250,000 be reduced to zero.

Is that my question that we're gonna answer?

What was that?

Well, Peter just mentioned a motion about adding the positions in.

I had asked a question that if that could get answered, that would be part of it I don't think he could do that.

So what John said when he gave the budget is that he wanted he's asking the select board to re reconsider.

And Hannah, would you like to tell us the the legality of him allowing uh asking that question and having it be reconsidered even though there were motions to the contrary?

I'm sorry, I I think I'm a little so can you can you do either you or Dick repeat his question?

I'll be happy to reframe the question.

Dick is asking the question, how can we how can we reconsider an item uh and there were there were two items.

One was the park and recons at full time, and that's what was voted down the other night, plus the finance part-time person that was voted down.

And and even it was brought up last time.

Well, Carol suggested a part-time rec person, and and um Isaac did not entertain that change in this motion.

So the motion was for the full-time person and that was a voted down.

And the motion was for the part-time finance person and that was voted down.

And John is asking us if we would reconsider those two positions in this budget that he's brought forward.

Is he legally able and are we legally able to reconsider those two items?

I can answer that.

Let's let's hear it from the attorney, shall we, Deb?

We flunked out of law school, but I can answer that.

Um well is it um I I don't see this as a motion to reconsider so much as there would be a new motion on the table to add those positions in.

And so it's a new motion uh concerned with the process of revisiting the budget, which was not the final vote to begin with.

So these these are all budget process questions that I mean we're revisiting the trash, and we've had numerous votes on the trash, haven't we?

We have I know there are restrictions in Roberts rules about you know you can't just bring up the same thing over and over again once it's been voted on.

Personally, in this setting, I'm sort of happy to just talk about it if if people feel strongly about it.

But all I'm saying, Madam Chairwoman, is if one of the three people that makes a motion to reconsider the action, I'm fine with it.

I don't think you can have a new motion.

That's my I'm not fighting anything.

Okay.

I'm just saying I think it's somebody who voted for that's what you have to do.

You did it the other day when you reconsidered the price of the trash bags.

I think that those that's all I'm saying.

That we've we've heard from our attorney that we can make a new motion.

Peters considered making a new motion for those two positions.

I think we can certainly in the spirit of of coming together to forge a budget, we could have that conversation, have that vote, and it's perfectly legal.

Yeah, I think if a board member wanted to object on procedural grounds, that'd be fair enough.

But uh I'm happy to just talk about it personally.

I would I would like to propose an amendment to Peter's the one of the three of Peter's motions.

Is that sure?

Well, I haven't actually made the motion yet.

We just talked about the motions I plan on making.

So I wouldn't commit it to anything.

So I would I would love to, in your not committed motions, um request that we separate the two positions and not put them on the same vote, the two, the the clerk position and the part-time park center act.

I would I uh I would ask that you amend your motion to separate those two positions.

You want one more motion?

I would like four total.

Yes, please.

Okay, very good.

Could I suggest that maybe we uh just to give this some structure, we Peter makes one of them and then we uh what a great start Peter makes one, we'll have a vote.

Peter makes another, we'll have a vote.

And so on.

Okay.

What do you think?

Are we this first this first motion that you've suggested making?

I think that we have no issue procedurally with.

Um can we take care of that part and then talk about the procedure for how we're gonna figure out the rest?

Sure.

All right.

Um I'm gonna I'm gonna start with gabbage.

Okay.

Um I'm going to uh formally move that we add back in uh the two streams of of solid waste, those being recycling and compost uh to its previous status.

Great.

Peter has made a motion to add back into the budget.

Let's see if I was listening.

The two-way streams, recycling and compost to the FY27 budget.

Correct also, yes, ma'am.

One question about that.

Because that's with a specific contractor.

Is that contractor's name?

Because that is the proposal.

Should that be part of the motion?

Well, it's not part of the budget.

And we're just talking about the budget.

We're just sort of talking about an overall number.

Even though that number is it's tied in with a specific contractor.

I don't think that that matters that's not German to the to the motion.

Because I think the previous uh the the previous status would be uh Casella there, great.

You made me say it.

Um Casella uh trash recycling uh town compost.

So I think we're just looking at a number and a budget.

Because the the way the way I've looked at these through my three motions, possibly four, um, is that it will get us uh a point uh one 1.2 points lower if if the and John backed that math up just a minute ago.

So yeah, so that that would be my motion to to add those two streams of solid waste back into our budget recycling and compost.

And that total change was 577.

Thank you, Pete.

577, 682.

But in all transparency, our contract contractual obligations are not certain at this time.

That's that number could change and increase.

So for full transparency to the public.

It could even decrease.

Okay.

So uh we have a motion on the table.

I've repeated it.

Uh are the board members ready to vote?

Yep.

Okay.

All uh select board members in favor of Peter's motion regarding returning the waste streams.

Uh raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh all select board members not in favor, please raise your hand and say no.

Okay.

So that's four one.

Amanda declining.

Uh next, Peter.

All right.

Um.

So I'm gonna make the motion.

You want to amend it, we can talk about it.

Um I'm gonna move that we add into the budget the part-time parks and rec position and the part-time finance position.

That's okay.

So, yes, John.

Um your former motion, um that was done on a slate.

And I think actually Amanda's suggestion to split them might be a good idea.

Um the we have done what you asked for, eliminate the full-time park maintenance position, but in this budget, like within this draft budget for you tonight, we we proposed an addition of that $20,000 part-time position, which was not part of your previous motion.

So that is a separate thing, and I think it you could make a motion to that effect and see if the board supports it or not.

The eliminate the finance new half position capacity was exactly what we put back into this draft budget.

So if Oscar Amanda or Isaac wanted to make that motion, it would probably be more appropriate as a reconsideration.

I do not wish to make that reconsideration.

Yes, I think technically it's a motion to rescind because a motion to be considered is something made in the same meeting, and a motion to rescind is on a decision made in a prior meeting.

Okay.

Sorry.

Do either Isaac Oscar or Amanda wish to rescind for the finance position.

I do not.

I'll make the motion then.

Nobody else is gonna do it.

So I I need some clarification.

I'm going to move to rescind our vote on reinstating the rest of the hours for the clerk position in the finance department.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Was it part of the slate or was it separate?

I'm just confused.

It was part of a slate.

So does that mean the whole slate's rescinded?

Is it just voted on as a no just that portion?

So in order to separate those two positions for the vote, it's required to rescind what I did.

Rescind that part, and then we'll vote on it separately.

Great.

Okay, great.

So uh Amanda has made a motion to rescind the earlier motion to uh remove the part-time finance position from our budget deliberations.

Uh all select board members in favor of that action, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Okay, that's three.

All those not in favor, please raise your hand and say no.

No.

No.

Okay.

So now the vote was three to two.

And so the next item most probably should be shall someone like to make a motion to add that part-time finance person to the budget.

Do all right.

So let me let me just get this thing clear because it's not clear to me anymore.

Um so we've got two positions.

Amanda previously said before the motion was made that she would like to amend it to break it out to two.

That's effectively what we're doing now.

Okay.

So it is probably since it's the one we just talked about, which probably makes the most sense to do that one now.

Yeah.

So I will motion that we add the part-time finance position back into the budget.

Great.

Peter has made a motion to add the part-time finance clerk position back into the FY27 budget.

All select board members in favor of that motion, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

That has failed.

Um all select board members not in favor of that motion, please raise your hand and say no.

No, no, no.

Okay, that's three to two.

Uh Peter, next motion.

The next motion, and I'm gonna want to figure out how much that's saved.

29,000.

So it's 29,000.

Yeah.

What's the cost per 100,000 on that?

Um $1.77.

A month?

A year.

A year.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I will uh move that we add uh the part-time parks and rec person into the budget.

Great.

Uh Pete Peter has made a motion.

Do you wish to speak to it, Amanda?

I just wondered if for clarity for the vote it's articulated how many hours per week.

Because that was part of the budget money.

I'm much more than happy to amend it.

It was 20.

Yep.

So all right.

Um I'll amend my motion and say I move that we add the 20 hours for a part-time parks and rec person into the budget.

Great.

Okay.

Now can I can I I haven't been speaking to these.

Please speak to you.

We do a lot of words up here.

A lot of words.

Um I think Carol made uh a a pretty impassioned um presentation about this person as a full-time person, um, as somebody who generates quite a bit of revenue uh for the town.

And I do believe that throwing her an extra 20-hour a week person to help her do all the wonderful work that she's done for how many years, John?

37.

Thank you, John.

Um for 37 years is is not asking a lot.

And what would that uh what what would that cost?

Um what was that cost?

So it's $20,000, but you're asking how much it costs.

20 hours.

Taxpayer for the year.

Yeah, I don't know if Carol.

Could ask Carol if she knows, but I think we are interrogated.

At the part-time level, we'd be asking for 20 20 hours a week at $20 an hour for the 52 weeks.

Okay.

Well, let me just do some math here.

Twenty times two.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I answered your question.

I said 20 hours a week, 20 dollars an hour.

So it's approximately 20,000.

Yeah.

No, you did.

That's all right.

I got an app for that.

2020.

Yeah.

So and uh, and and what did we just remove from the budget?

29.

Um, so this would be if I if I'm doing my math correctly, would be less than uh which was about a dollar and and to help that wonderful woman continue to do the work that she does, I don't think is asking a lot.

So that would be my motion.

There is my impassioned plea.

Okay.

Yay or nay you.

Uh does anyone want to speak to that, Oscar?

Just in a sentence, which is that you know I love Carol, I love Star, I love the library, I love all these departments.

We this is a year where we're really struggling to make these things connect up.

We're expanding the fire department.

We're doing all these things at some point there there have to be things we say no to.

So I'm gonna continue to say no to this and the other one and feel terrible about it, but that's where I'm at.

Okay, so uh Peter's made a motion uh to hire a part-time record uh 20 20 hours a week for $20,000 a year at $20 an hour, and that's a lot of 20s.

And um all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye, absolutely.

Okay, all those not in favor, please raise your hand and say no.

No, no.

All right.

And I think uh I think that would be very good stewardship of taxpayer dollars in Carol's hands.

And if I wasn't on the select board, I would apply.

Because I'd love to work for Carol.

It's a great mentor to a lot of our youth in our community.

Oh, I'm sorry, yeah.

Um you got something else over here.

I got one more.

All right.

All right.

Um and then I want to speak to it.

Sure.

So given these conversations, as difficult as they are, I am going to motion uh that the amount allocated for human services in the current budget year of 250,000 be reduced to zero.

Um speaking to that came largely from the reoccurring uh conversations uh that I had today, um municipal budget versus human services budget.

Um people calling it um forced donating.

I am I am a proponent of helping those in need.

I do it myself.

I make contributions myself.

Again, if we're gonna say that we might as well say the third time charity starts at home.

So I think that this, given this time where we are adding things into the budget, this is not a direct service um that we uh should provide, and we should take a look at this and then possibly for this budget year, see how we do throughout the year, maybe have revisit this conversation a year from now, but right now for FY27, I'm going to uh advocate that we uh reduce that allocated 250,000 to zero.

Right.

Um Peters made a motion.

Uh anyone on this board want to speak to it?

Oscar.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um someone made a comment in the public earlier.

Why haven't we considered cutting human services funding in favor of these other things?

We have already done that in this budget.

The initial draft that came to us, human services funding was cut by half by 250,000.

And I as someone who's supported it for a long time uh knowing what kind of year it was, I kept it to myself and you know, just ate it on that one.

Um because everyone's making sacrifices.

I don't think there's a department here that hasn't given something up, and human services is no exception.

This is uh this is a bridge too far for me in terms of the compromise between the different different groups in our community and the things they value.

This is this is too far.

This this is a step too far.

And of course, there is always the parentheses, it's it's a little bit monopoly money for us, right?

We we were told by a vote of town meeting, put it in at 500k.

We're gonna say 250, and now we're trying to say zero.

It makes our number get lower, but is that a realistic thing, or are we gonna say uh here's your budget, it's six percent, and then very predictably it's 8.5 after town meeting.

Um but my main objection is the first one.

And I I you know I don't think it's irresponsible to suggest, and there are things if it was 250k for human services or town department X.

If if it came down to that choice, yeah, I I there are things I would absolutely prioritize over it, but um this one doesn't work for me.

And now hang on, am I didn't we vote on this?

Didn't we have humans?

I guess not to zero.

We had different budgets.

You didn't vote to zero.

We voted to a hundred K.

Yeah, we would have did a hundred K and we did two hundred K.

And voted no one vote.

Yes, you guys voted no I'm all of us.

Not all of us, of course.

Okay, so that's that's my feeling on this.

I'll I'll end too.

I I think zero is is is um I just don't think that's Brattleboro.

Um I think Brattleboro likes to help um in a way that they can afford.

Um I think that um going to zero is unrealistic.

Um I urge the advocates for the human services funding once we get to town meeting to consider the hard decisions we've been making as a board um and entertaining uh going without town services.

Um trying to make those hard choices and that in the spirit of compromise um might be willing to um not ask for you know half a million dollars.

That's a lot of money.

We want to help, but we want to help within our means.

Um that's just for the public record.

Isaac, do you wish to comment?

Can you give me a moment?

Anybody else have something to say first?

Yeah, I have something to say.

Um, I think um last year the finance committee did an extensive analysis in their in their report to RTM about um uh really Brattleboro being far and away the most uh generous of communities with regard to human service funding.

Um but I think we have to take into account um what's been happening in Brattleboro in recent years.

And and a lot of people talk about the tremendous demand on human services.

Uh a lot of that demand is based on um the state's allocation uh in the motel program.

And and we are strapped because of that.

And I think that um we need to understand that a tremendous amount of our budget is already expended in um providing uh support to people in need.

Um I really you know a lot of people have said to me um we have to, the select board has to take this fund back and reform it and and keep it in our control because RTM's human service budget is has run away from us.

And so um I think you know, when we're faced with the with the really hard choices that we've been faced with, um we need to we need we need to look to ourselves to what we need and and ask the generous people of in this town if if they wish to uh give to these nonprofits, they should and um take it out of municipal coffers.

Um Isaac, do you are you ready for a comment?

Are you ready to vote?

I am ready for a comment.

Thank you.

We have re this budget that we have in front of us has a 50 percent reduction in what representative town meeting had advised the select board to do.

And I my perspective has shifted on this, being on different sides of this table right here, because now we're responsible for coming up with a budget that um it's affordable.

I would like for us to revisit how we do this whole process with the human services budget.

And uh I mentioned that at an earlier meeting, that it's a little weird to be thinking about okay.

I mean, we just said this this budget cuts the request for a few more hours or a few um a little bit more support for the library to be able to stay open and not have to put a sign saying, oh, you know, someone's out sick, we're we're closing up shop.

You know, we're we're not honoring that request, but we are honoring requests from nonprofits.

I mean, it is a little I agree with the sentiment of trying to support um our municipal services are our and doing that and what's great about that is it's in the the public, but we as the tax as the community voters get to decide.

So I I like the idea of us revisiting how we do this.

Um what I would ask is that we do so in a responsible way.

So cutting cutting this by 50 percent is already a huge decrease for and these are or I'm just looking partly why it took me a minute.

This is just looking at this list of these 30 some organizations.

It's like the top of the list senior solutions, Bravo Senior Meals, Youth Services, Women's Freedom Center, Broadway Area Hospice.

I mean, these are you know, I just I just had a Bradboro senior meal that I paid seven dollars for today.

And uh there are people who I saw it at the senior center who really I think really count on that that meal.

And I'm thinking to wipe this out to zero.

Um I would want to, before we made a drastic decision like that, I would want to be able to hear, you know, what is the impact of that decision, sort of like we heard from on the impact of all these decisions around all these um departments, some of which would be similar sorts of cuts.

So I would suggest that we we uh that we uh decline to to cut it further than this 50 percent.

Oh, one of the things that I forgot to mention earlier is that you know, last week we were faced with uh a uh I don't know what you want to call it, uh a target uh, you know, an ultimatum, uh a concern that our budget be limited to no more than a six percent increase.

And so the question that has been is how to get to that number.

And so we're these are the things that we're juggling.

Um there's there's no movement left.

And we have the three trash streams, um, the first responders, and the human services.

And that's how I see this balance.

And so I want the trash dreams, because that's a service to our community.

That's a service to our you know bread and butter residents that would be an expense otherwise.

And so I just think that we should be, you know, let's say it one more time, charity beginning at home.

And and that the human service budget, uh, as one person said to me, is you know, it's tearing our part, our town apart because we can no longer afford it.

When we were flush with whatever money that we had, um it it made sense, but even then it got out of hand.

We were by far and away uh the biggest contributor in the state.

And so I feel that if we want to stick with the target that we were given last week, six percent, and this is six point five percent.

That's the closest we're gonna get to keeping the budget in check and adding the waste streams back.

And that's why I'm I'm I'm voting that way.

One more thing.

I just was remembering the vote that we've talked about that was on the ballot, and I think you were part of the board that put that on the ballot to to get the opinions of the voters.

And a you know, I think it was two percent or more got the plurality, meaning it was a minor minority, but that was the option that got the most votes.

A majority, if I'm not mistaken, voted for one percent or more of the budget.

That what's in here is one percent budget.

So yeah, I it's um and that we weren't flushed with money last year.

That was a I mean, we were looking at we it was even a higher increase in the percentage of the higher percentage increase than the last year in the budget.

So I I think we need to list you know to use the information we have from the voters and from town meeting.

Um and I would just say that there are other options for where we could cut in this budget.

Not without pain, um, but there are vacant positions in our town in departments that have seen recent personnel growth.

There's positions um in some of the larger departments that wouldn't that we could reduce ours without eliminating the entire program or service.

Um so I I'm I'm gonna vote no on this.

All right.

Are we ready for a vote?

Let's play the game a little more.

All right.

Um I bring up the human services budget.

Because it is something we do as a kindness as we add it in.

And it has been kind.

Um I was part of the representative town meeting, I think I've said this before that voted going up to two percent.

I am now sitting on this side of the table, seeing what this this number does to our budget each year.

Um with, as you just pointed out, a very higher increase going into it.

Um still managed to pull out 461,000.

Um if sitting on that side of the table.

I could probably defend almost every single line.

There are a few I can't, but I could.

But as we sit here now looking at this, what this number, this gets us pretty close to where we want to be.

If not zero.

What's the number?

Because I think leaving it at 250,000.

No bueno.

Just can't happen.

I I I believe that.

I see that now.

You know, um, through some of the conversations that I had today.

Um a few people said you you you don't cut fire police or DPW.

Those are essential services.

It is it is our it is our moral responsibility to provide those things to our community.

So don't touch those.

But this is something that we do based on morals, but it has to move now.

So if not 2,000 and 50 or zero.

Can I get a 99,000?

Well, you know, uh let's take a vote and see where we are.

So and wait for another motion, you're saying you're saying take a vote on Peter's motion and then see if there's another motion that comes in.

Let's take a vote and see.

If we got three votes, we're done.

So Peter has made a motion.

Are we taking public comment on this one?

Sure.

Gemma?

Jackie.

And no.

Gemma Seymour District 8.

Uh there aside from my general interest in uh municipal politics and politics in general, there's two reasons why I'm in this room right now.

The first one was the acceptable conduct ordinance that I opposed.

And uh the third is that um I was really troubled last year about the idea that people wanted to cut the human services budget to zero while we were giving a gigantic increase to the police department.

I'm trying to remember what exactly the procedure uh the legal procedure here is, because the vote that representative town meeting took about the human services budget was not just a vote to advise the select board as to what percentage we wanted to see in next year.

We voted on a specific number for this year.

And so I'm trying to understand why the select board is even having this conversation at all.

It doesn't really matter what number you put in there, if the number is up to representative town meeting or open town meeting or Australian ballot, whatever we happen to do next.

So why are we even talking about this?

Why are we talking about zero or 250 or 450 or 500,000?

Representative town meeting has been very clear.

It's 2%.

And that's probably what representative town meeting is gonna say again this year.

Uh but um I kind of lost my train of thought there.

Um sorry.

See if I can get it back.

Is that um I'll end it there since I'm just about out of time.

I lost my train of thought, but you got the gist of what I was trying to say.

Thank you.

Yes.

Just to say, Gemma, I think while I agree with you, um, unfortunately for that argument, I'm pretty sure the warning said up to what amount?

So to advise the select board to spend up to two percent.

That was the that was the budget advisory issue.

The actual human services budget was voted on directly by RTM.

But that was the FY26 currently in effect one, which is in effect and which we haven't changed.

The one that said how much this year has to be was where we chose the percentage, and if I'm what I'm trying to ask is why aren't we following that same procedure?

I share your concern.

Just to finish my train of thought, the last thing I was going to say was I do think we can afford the two percent.

Would you need to answer the question or something?

So we state I think Oscar just Smith.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um so I don't have an opinion on the number.

Um, and I don't have a problem with municipal spending on human services.

Um, but I have noticed that um, and I have tended personally to vote for one and a half or two percent every year.

Um this um this year I also noticed that I think that the human services the the conflicts of opinion about human services is part of what is uh driving the challenge to the way our governance is working, and that disturbs me a lot.

Um and so I looked at the history of the budget spending and the human services spending and the way it's been proposed.

And um I'm looking right now, what I'm holding is the chart of um what um we've spent on the budget um since fiscal year uh 17, and I shared it with some of you, and I don't remember if I shared it with all of you.

Um and also compared that with human services.

So basically, since fiscal year 17 to 26, the town budget um expenditures has increased by 59.1 percent, and the um the human service expenditures has increased by 227.7 percent.

And so I was like kind of surprised to see that and wondering how that happened, and um and then I thought to about how the the motions have been made and the way it's spoken of it at RTM.

And 2% of when you say 2% of budget, it means 2% of spending, right?

It's not 2% of what we earned, it's 2% of what we have spent.

So that means that every time we we we spend on uh you know health care increases, or uh trash or police or fire or any anything, the the income that we make is the bill that we charge taxpayers for what we have just promised to purchase.

So it's not like me at home with my salary tithing.

I'm gonna ask you to wrap it up.

Okay.

So I think I think I I while I don't have a while I do not have an opinion on the on the amount that we should spend, I think that framing the that that the way we have been for the five years since I've been in town meeting, framing the pro framing the the money as a percentage of expenditures has been a mistake.

That's my point.

Thank you very much.

Okay, Cyrus Smith.

Pardon me.

Hello, um Cyrus Smith, member of the public district seven.

Um I seem to hear the question, why are we doing this?

Um correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason why we are currently deciding um what the select board thinks the budget should be is because the select board needs to make a recognition towards the public, which is then voted on again.

Um it is the recommendation that we need so that we can sway the public to make a informed decision on how we spend the public budget.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you very much.

David Mr.

Um David David Minor, representative from uh District 7, Chair of the Human Services Committee.

We started the meeting talking about the the weather that we're about to expect.

And people were pointing out the needs of people and what you know what residents were going to need.

And that's exactly what we're talking about here, right now.

So I think to zero it out, um is totally inappropriate.

There's something that I noticed when I when I took a look at the uh paperwork for tonight, then taking a look at the articles that were going to be presented uh for RTM, that the only article in there for human services was about election of people to the committee for next year.

There was nothing about voting on the allocation uh for this year or proposal for next year.

The only thing I can think of is that that decision had already been made because you eliminated all the discussion at RTM about the allocation.

Um I think it's important.

It's important for the for for the for the many group uh groups that uh provide support.

Like uh the numbers that we saw uh this year that uh almost 16,000 residents in the town.

So obviously many residents um are needing more than you know, services from more than one organization.

Um I think uh you know it's important that uh you know that it it be continued.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jackie.

Uh so two things.

One is that uh by bringing it down to zero doesn't mean that these organizations are gonna lose all of their money.

They don't get all of their money from us.

They get millions of dollars from other from other organizations, from other foundations or wherever they get their money from.

That's so we're not talking about all of these organizations losing all of their money.

It's just a small portion of it.

The other thing is again going back to percentages as opposed to dollar figures.

When you say, well, we'll give them two percent of the budget, that seems like a really small amount.

But I think if the if the question went out, so should we give them another 250,000?

Because that's 2% of the budget, I think you would have gotten quite a few different answers.

We've got to talk in terms of dollars, and we've got to, if we're gonna be talking to people about and asking what they think about these things, we have to talk in terms of dollars, and both terms of how many dollars are going to which organizations, as well as, and that's gonna mean that you're gonna be paying this much more in taxes.

So I I think that if we're going to engage the public, we have to talk to them in a language that they understand.

So when we talk to when we people vote on these things, they they can look at this question and say, how much 1%, more than 1%, 2%, nothing.

You they're gonna say, I have no idea.

I know that's what I said when I looked at it.

I have no idea what kind of money you're talking about.

So if you're gonna engage the full population, or as many as you can, you gotta talk to them in their language.

It's got to be money, not percent.

Thank you.

Uh let's hear from uh Eric and then Nell.

Yeah, Dick.

You don't fall asleep on it.

Just uh just a quick uh comment that I I want to make I that Gemma's question kind of brought up to me was why you know why are we doing this?

I think it's a sip very simple.

I think that by lowering it to zero, it makes the budget look falsely lower.

I think we know Brattleboro is a caring community that won't accept zero.

Where where it'll end up, I don't know.

Uh you know, but it'll be one percent or point seven five or two, I don't know.

But it's just a false way of doing it.

And keep it where it is, let the budget be more realistic looking and healthier, and stop please.

I think the reason for lowering it, Gemma, or now there's a present thing, and you can correct me, Madam Chair, is it certainly makes the budget look a little nicer.

That's that's the reason um my reason for lowering it is to have it be lower.

So there you go.

Let's let's uh hear from Nell.

Uh Nell Mayo District 8.

Um again, a few things.

I I agree with Jackie that I think people get very confused about the percentage.

I think in general, it's a confusing process for people at town meeting.

I think shifting it to dollars could be a beneficial move.

Um I also think that when we're having discussions about having a lower medium income in our town, having a lot of working class, like the interests of working class and low-income people.

I do think that uh people betray their class privilege when they say this is a nice thing to do.

This is something we do as a favor.

Because I think honestly, there are taxpayers in this town that are getting a higher investment on their dollars in terms of services they use through this allocation, the same way that we as a town recognize we get a lot more for our $50,000 to the mover than that $50,000.

Um I again think that I would echo what Eric just said in terms of realism.

What do we think is the best bet?

Uh, we can it's already at 1% as opposed to the 2% that was voted on at RTM.

If the intention is to mirror what's realistic for RTM, I think that's just preparing ourselves for an inevitable.

Doesn't necessarily have to reflect my opinion.

I think I think it should be voted on by the town or by you know whoever shows up to vote on that from the town.

But I do think that any time that we can have more directly participatory democracy is a benefit, and I think that consolidating power would be a shame.

I think that if we are moving to a lower number because we're looking to take that decision away from the town, um, I think that would be a shame.

I think that's a pillar of our government is the way that we have this direct involvement in democracy.

And I also think that frankly, people have been really upset because they don't feel represented.

And so the more votes you get on that, the more actually representative it is.

Let's go to the screen.

Let's hear from Robin and then Ken.

And then I'll and I'll let Gemma say one more thing, and that's it.

Okay.

Um I just wanted to talk about dollars.

Okay.

So when we talk about this proposed cut, which has already been cut in half, and now you're proposing eliminating altogether.

How much money is that going to save the taxpayers?

Okay.

I I really think that it is valid what Eric said about it just makes the budget look nicer.

But what is the material impact of this cut on people of the town?

So if we're talking about uh, I think that the current number in the budget is something like 250,000.

Okay.

So we cut that much from the budget.

How much money does that save the average homeowner?

I remember from last year's process when we had uh assistant town manager that we could put these inquiries to, that it was I'm no, that was no shade on you, John.

Just I know that like there's a lot more um work now that it's it's all just you.

So that uh the um the amount that that he said last year that was represented approximately by the allocation that we had last year, which was around 450,000, I think that represented around $69 for the average value homeowner.

It was like $37 per $100,000 of home value, but the average home is somewhere closer to $200.

So it came out to about $69 or $70 for the average home value.

Now we're looking at an amount that is almost half that.

So we're gonna be saving people like you know $35 or something a year.

That's what you're saving people by making this cut.

The average value homeowner is gonna see a decrease on their tax bill of about $35 for zeroing out the human service budget.

And what services are gonna be diminished because of that.

I actually am very intimately familiar with what are all the income streams that these organizations have access to because I was on the committee, and I can tell you that they're all diminished.

All of the rest of their income streams are also diminished because of the federal cuts.

So this is the worst possible time to withdraw our support.

A fully a quarter of the people in this town go to get their food at food works.

And the amount of people who are relying on these services is even higher amongst children.

So that's who you're impacting when you zero this out.

Thank you.

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Ken Teddy District 8.

And you see me.

You're kind of a we can hear you.

Okay.

Oh, oh.

Anyway, um, I think it's actually uh interesting and not in a good way that we had the vigil uh this afternoon for homeless who have been who have died.

And now because a lot of the human services help people uh on the way to homelessness and uh who are homeless, perhaps.

And uh to me, uh two percent last year was uh I guess uh sharked off as a as insignificant when it related to an error on the budget.

It was it was you know um a minimal you know minimal number, and now we have one percent of the budget, and to cut that for needed services for people.

I mean, everybody says charity, you know, the people who need the uh who need the services, they're not giving to the to them to charity to the services.

It's um it's it's helping the fellow citizen.

Uh and and to me, uh Amanda, you know, like that's what Brattleboro Brattleboro helps people.

And and uh, you know, why not have the town, all of the town help the people who need the help?

Anyway, thank you very much.

Have a great night.

Gemma, and then you're the last one, Gemma.

There's one more on Zoom, if you like.

I just want to clarify that my previous question was really just purely a procedural question.

I wasn't trying to impugn the process by asking why are we trying to lower the human services budget?

I was asking, why are we even discussing any numbers at all when it seems to me that it's representative town meeting that has the final say over what the human services budget should be?

So if the select board wants to put it at one percent uh and then take that to RTM, somebody on the floor is gonna get up and I can tell you that it's gonna be me if it's not gonna be anybody else to raise it back to two percent.

In fact, last year, I believe if I my memory is correct, I moved that we raise it to 2.2%.

Um, so that again, it was just a purely procedural question.

Why are we wasting so much time even talking about a specific number if the select board is not the one that actually sets that number?

Thank you.

Uh there's one more person here.

Uh I thought it was uh Ken, but they have the same picture.

Yep, it's far.

Hi there.

Thanks, everyone.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

All right.

Um, yeah.

So to Jimmy's Gemma's point just now, and uh I'm I'm surprised to hear this from from what um David Minor was just saying.

You know, I've I have plenty of concerns about the the reduction of the human services uh recommendation, but the complete elimination of the question from uh from the agenda for RTM or town meeting or whatever it is that we end up going with.

That that is that is even more troubling because it it precludes the option of somebody like Gemin or anybody else from actually even addressing this.

And it's a continuation, it seems to me, of the erogation of power on the part of the select board.

Um as happened last year, or maybe was the year before with the seventh budget.

Just continuing to take things off of the agenda that have traditionally been on the agenda and RTM and and and just making those decisions entirely within a five-person board instead of 180 something uh person, more much more democratic process.

And I'm I'm very troubled by that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um board.

Go right ahead.

Yeah, I I was gonna keep my mouth shut, but I feel compelled a little.

Um starting up front, acknowledging what I said before.

I think this is a reasonable idea to propose.

I don't think it's crazy.

I don't think I'm not offended by it.

Um I do I feel compelled to respond to the way this is being talked about a little tonight, which is to say the human services budget being where it's at is not an accident, and it is not a uh charming quirk of Brattleboro being a confused hippie town or something like that.

And this is also not a program where we just do nice things for people.

This is not a fund where we buy everyone uh present on their birthday.

This is an intentional effort by the town of Brattleboro and its voters to put money behind things that help people in slightly non-traditional ways for a municipality.

And a lot, sure, everyone's got their things on the list where they say, yeah, I don't know about that one.

Isn't that one based in Putney?

Is this really necessary?

There are always those questions.

But the vast majority of things on that list are local organizations without big budgets, without million dollar funders who do things like provide child care, feed people, and house people.

So, like I said, I'm okay in a year of extreme difficulty with the budget of tolerating a reduction.

I understand it, it makes sense, but I'm not okay with zeroing it out, and I'm really not okay with the characterization of this sort of ephemeral nice to have, and we don't know quite how we got here.

So I'd like to keep it where it is.

It would make me feel most comfortable about this being a budget that even though I have reservations, I'm willing to go to town meeting and fight for and make the case for.

And I hope we can see it in the context of a compromise where many things are being reduced.

I think probably everyone in this room and at this table is unhappy, which, as we learned from John, is the sign of a successful mediation from our most recent town process.

And that gets more difficult for me if this entirely gets the axe.

So I I understand the impulse.

I hope we can restrain ourselves and then maybe win the pitch for 250K at town meeting when the time comes.

Thank you.

Amanda, you had a comment?

Yeah.

I want to concur with what Oscar said.

And I also want to note that the town of Brattleboro, you know, in terms of helping our community members with our town budget, does that in some very real ways through the Department of Parks and Recreation, our senior center, our low cost camps in the summer for working parents are very I don't, I can't what it maybe it's four dollars to go to the Brattleboro pool for a resident of Brattleboro.

Um I mean, these are all really affordable programs we offer that our taxpayers support.

And so to take a compromise for our human service funding, it seems quite reasonable because in order for us to uphold the municipal services that we have to support our citizens, uh we're gonna have to ask that the independent organizations that are not part of our municipality join with us in a compromise for our taxpayers.

So not and not so, yeah, affordable fees, wreck and parks, senior center, free, those are free, free lunches, or seven dollar lunch, which by the way, if you're a senior, go to the senior center because there's lunch and you can hang out.

And uh the library, right?

Like and anybody think of anything else that we offer as a town.

That's low cost.

We are for curbside recycling, I hear.

That's for a really big cost.

That's a big one.

Yeah.

Anyway, just wanted to throw that in there.

Well, um, Peter, did you want to speak?

I do.

I think I do.

And unless no?

Okay.

So here's what I'm hearing.

Regardless of the impact that this thing has on the budget, we don't want to remove the 250,000 for some legitimate concerns that it might falsify a number going in.

Um I think people's tolerance for it, at least the folks that I have talked to, is very low.

Um, people are fatigued by it.

Um they're stuck on this current budget number of 461,000.

Um but if you four can tell me that with that in the budget that that's a budget you can fight for at well, we removed the position, so where are we now?

Poor John just figure it out.

Please don't call him.

It's gonna be around seven, let's say.

So it'll be a little bit, it'll be like seven and a half, right?

So is is that a number?

Is that right?

Probably.

Yeah, just again, just you know, throwing out false numbers.

And and that's my concern.

I'm sorry, are you gonna do that?

No, I'm um I'm I'm not.

Um thank you.

Um if that is something with this number in the budget that we think we can fight for and justify, then I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you and I'll and I'll and I'll rescind my motion.

But if you don't think that we can get this number through and convince people of Brattleboro that that we've done everything we can, and I believe that we have, um you know, we'll take it to a vote and we'll see where it see where it goes.

Yeah.

So Mike, and and that's exactly my concern because you know, last week we were held to a standard of less than six percent.

And lo and behold, John Potter, I don't know how he pulled this rabbit out of a hat, but he did.

And Pete had a lot to do with that.

And then, you know, we're weighing all these things.

My concern is that you know, if we can't even afford uh a part-time finance person to make sure that, you know, and everybody screams and yells when there's an error, and these people just want to be able to do their job correctly, right?

So we don't have however much money that was $50,000 for that.

Um, you know, that's that's basic to our town government.

And so if we're gonna be held to this number, uh and every and there's gonna be this hue and cry of you know, affordability and I'm leaving town, and you know, all these sincere, legitimate concerns that the people in this town have on the tax rate, then we have to move the human service budget.

And that's all I'm saying.

I mean it's like if if we can all live with six and a half percent and no human service budget.

It but but I don't want people saying to me, you know, if you if you put the human service budget back at 250,000, and the budget goes up to seven and a half percent, and everyone says, oh, the select board's irresponsible because the taxes are too high.

That is what that is where we are right now.

And and it it concerns me no end.

And so, you know, um we have this sword over our head about the tax rate, and it's come to this.

So we need to vote.

Let me just answer your question.

Yeah, if the budget we've discussed today, all the other changes we've made, if we keep this where it is, I will vote yes on it, and I will, you know, we we will be on the same team when we walk into that town meeting, and I will do my best to make what I think is the very reasonable case that first of all, we've sweat the sweated blood over this for a month, and second of all, we've looked everywhere.

We've cut everywhere.

We have cut in places that I didn't think would happen a month ago.

So I think as part of a very difficult compromise, it it makes sense.

And I think there is a very reasonable chance that we can walk out of town meeting with the human services number where it is at 250K.

And I will happily work with you to try and make that case and make that happen.

All right, I appreciate that.

All right.

Oh, hang on.

No, no, no.

I I do kind of want to interrogate everybody.

I'm not really up for being interrogated as well.

Well, I hate the interrogator, let's just say that.

But is that uh is that a number that that you can you can fight for and and justify 250,000?

To leave that in the tax rate within the and leave the tax rate where it is.

That's very different.

That's a that's a very difficult number as Liz has articulated I hearing that I would um wonder if we could engage in a conversation about it not being zero, but something being more than zero, but less than two hundred and fifty thousand.

It's splitting hairs.

But I lost, I mean, I lost big time, and I had such a way to look to decrease this budget.

So I know I kind of, you know, I'm I don't mean to get petty.

But when I hear hyperbolic statements about sweating blood and tears and all of this stuff, come on, people.

We are making budgetary decisions, dollars for our taxpayers.

We can make this decision.

It is not fair to go to zero.

250 is maybe higher than we can afford.

So what's the next number?

Well, uh last week we voted down a hundred.

So voted down a hundred.

That was my suggestion.

Would you let finish my sentence, please?

Amanda.

Why don't we cut the two fifty in half and suggest 120?

Which that's not something that we've already voted.

I don't I don't want to get into a whole let's make a deal thing.

Um and to to address some uh what is clearly Amanda's frustrations, um you were voted down four to one for a reason, right?

Because we sort of know where this thing might end up.

Right?

Um you were voted down four to one on removing curbside uh because it wasn't clearly the right thing to do.

Um those are the reasons you were voted down four to one, okay.

We all respect you wanting to lower the budget.

We do know, but there's responsible services that you provide for a town.

I heard from a myriad of people uh regarding their their curbside service, that they wanted it.

Um citing if it if it ups my taxes uh two percent, uh I am okay with that if I don't have to start watching tipping fees go up.

Because one way or the other, whether it comes off your tax bill or it comes directly out of your checking account every month to us to a hauler, or uh the increased footprint on on uh you know on carbon emissions and and wear and tear on the roadways and carrying it all out, all very valid arguments, very valid uh for those people who don't own cars.

Really a hardship there, right?

So it's all fair and equitable.

One one person said to me today that I thought municipal taxes were supposed to level the playing field.

That made a lot of sense to me.

I'd never actually viewed it through that lens before.

Um so those are the reasons you lost four to one on those votes.

I just want to I I just want to clear the air on that.

Here's the other thing that I I offer still stands, right?

I don't know that we sit up here and play let's make a deal with the human services budget.

Um we zero, clearly we don't have a we don't have a tolerance for zero.

I think if we just start monkeying around going whatever.

So my question is simple.

If we think we can march into uh whatever form of of meeting we have in in March or April and defend this budget at its current state, then I am happy to rescind my motion.

I am happy to vote yes on the budget that leaves, yes.

Um would vote yes and and and as you said before, vigorously.

Oh, I will vote yes extremely vigorously.

Um how would you a little sweat?

Yeah.

What do we it's 1015?

What do we think about a possible let's have this vote?

Okay.

And then we'll have another break.

Well, I have to do that.

I want to bring up one other point.

One other point.

And it's relating to the 2.5 positions that we're adding to the budget with our compost program.

I am completely in favor of curbside compost.

But we have to really be um we have to look with clear eyes at the fact that we had a workers' compensation like adjustment to our workers' compensation right um tax level, whatever uh fee structure of like $300,000?

That's because we were understaffed, is my understanding.

That's because there's something called it's a um help me out, people.

It's an experience mod, right?

It means it's based on every three years.

And we and John, correct me if I'm wrong.

So we're in an experience mod that's very high.

We add more employees.

We we have there's higher risk.

We with clear eyes as a select board have to know that we are voting for something that is increasing the risk for our insurance rates.

As long as you can defend that as well, great.

So wait a minute.

So what you're asking us to do is defend your original proposal to add this into the budget as a way to step the budget back.

Can I quickly know what I'm saying?

What I'm saying is is that we were asked by the taxpayers to reduce the budget.

We know that staffing is our highest expense.

And with this budget, we are adding two and a half more people.

And we're doing it in a high risk um it with a high risk skill set, which is this compost.

And I know I'm going back to it.

I'm going back to it because the people who are gonna come to town meeting, they may reject this budget.

And we have to with clear eyes know that that could happen.

Can I make a quick point of order?

Sure.

It I I think the reason a vote on a motion is the mechanism in Robert's rules to proceed through a discussion.

So I think that is why I completely understand your disappointment, Amanda, but at a certain point we voted on that exact question.

The board made a decision.

I think we have to move on to other areas.

Um we have a motion on the table, and the question is do we want do we want to signal Peter that we're content for him to rescind that motion and stay with essentially the budget that's on the table, which is all the decisions that we've made and keeping 250,000 for human services and having a uh a budget rate increase of seven and a half percent, and that's what's on the table.

And and and are are we are we good with that?

Or are we are we to gonna take it down to 6.5 and reduce the hermit zero at the human service?

That's where we are it it sounds like there's two different the way that you're phrasing it is that there are two options, and it's not a yes or no um motion.

I think we need a motion and then we can either vote yes or no on it.

And if the motion is, and maybe you could restate your motion.

Well, my the my motion right now is is it is the homework that we get to do live in front of everybody, uh which often makes us difficult.

I have to sort of forget that there are people watching um, is that if we feel with the 250,000 remaining in our town budget for human services, is if if we feel that we can defend that number at seven and a half percent, or you know, whatever the jo whatever the final math is that John puts what we know it's gonna be right around there percentage, uh you know, a tenth of a percentage point up or down.

Um if that is something that we feel that we as a board can defend, then uh I am good to rescind.

If it is not, then we can vote it down.

It sounds like the direction we're going in.

Um and either way, we we re um what we wind up right where we are.

But my homework on the on the fly here is to figure out um if I don't want to play let's make a deal with the number.

I just think that that keeps us here until midnight.

So I would suggest that I know where Oscar stands.

I appreciate that.

I'm not gonna say where I stand again.

Um, but in in these more difficult moments, I think we can fall back to procedure, which is if there's no clear head nods or whatever, we can vote on the motion and then proceed from there.

If that's probably the easiest way, I would say.

Um, we're not defending human service budget because you're not responsible for this.

Okay, people.

Well, we're gonna have a vote.

All right.

Uh Peter?

Do you have a motion?

I did have a motion.

You did have a motion.

Um let's just repeat it because we're gonna vote.

All right.

I moved uh that the uh allocated amount uh to the human services fund of 250,000 uh be reduced to zero.

Okay, Peter's made a motion to reduce the human service allocation of 250,000 to zero.

All select board members in favor of that motion, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

That's three.

All select board members not in favor of that motion, please raise your hand and say no.

No.

That's two.

Uh so uh have we finished with I've got some more.

I where else can we cut?

Can we cut anywhere else?

Can we cut anywhere else to get to that under six percent that we work for?

That's probably a great discussion for after our break.

Fine.

Let's have a break and come back in five minutes.

Um it would be nice if we could wrap up this budget item.

Um FY27 Select Board General Fund budget.

Um I ask a procedural question.

Sure.

Are we planning to vote on the budget as a whole tonight?

And do we feel like we have all the changes clearly enough to do that?

Or do we need to see here's the revised draft on Tuesday, and we're approving the official document.

I think well, let's hear from John.

I think it can be done.

Um what do you think?

You're the keeper of the budget.

Yeah, uh, I mean, I I understand the changes that you made tonight.

I can incorporate those into the budget that we that we then put in the town report if if you approved it.

If not, we can make other changes or whatever you want to do.

But from a um the select board fulfilling its role to approve the budget, you think it's okay to approve this plus bulleted list of changes versus us having a document in front of us?

Absolutely, because what we could do would be have a motion.

Let's let's say for example, Peter made a motion to accept the budget, and then instead of as presented, it's as amended, and he brings forward the the motions that we're just that we just decided on.

And so that's um a pretty clear, a very clear direction of what we just acted on.

Okay, Peter.

Would you like to make a motion?

That caused enough trouble.

Not quite, no quite all right.

Um I will um I will motion to approve the FY27 general fund budget and capital plan as amended.

And do you want to do we need to say what those amendments are or John?

Are you clear on them?

No what they are.

I I would love to be reminded of the full list.

I'd also like to propose another another action, and I'm not sure if that needs to why don't we let let Peter complete his motion and then uh you may want to amend it or you may want another motion.

Yes, John.

Um so my understanding of the three changes to the uh draft budget that you have in your packet is that we will put recycling and compost back in.

We will remove the finance half position, and we will take the human services budget to zero.

Is it really just those three things?

No, there's one more.

It's the it's the recursion twenty.

Oh, that was already in there.

Oh, very good.

Okay.

Can we get if we're doing this by ear?

Can we get numbers for those three?

Yeah.

Um I know Pete gave us the exact before he might be gone.

He's still there.

Yes, it's not gone.

577.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Thank you, Peter.

577, 682.

Okay, so plus and then and then minus 20.

I believe it's 29,000.

Minus 29 for the half-time finance direction.

29,000.

And then minus, is it exactly 250?

No, it's uh 49, 713.

Thank you.

So Peter Peter, did you you want to actually make that motion and all its glory details?

All right, so uh to approve the F.

Yeah, I'm gonna approve uh to um can I see the wording on it again?

I'm sorry.

Oh I probably have a speech.

Yeah, you do.

All right, sorry.

Uh to approve the FY27 general fund budget and capital plan as amendment, and those amendments are to um to add back in the two streams of uh recycling and compost to our solid waste program.

And do I need to include those numbers or not?

No, but I can give you a total number if you would like plus 2671.

27 million eighteen thousand three hundred and thirty-five.

What John said and uh I also all right, so we don't need to do the park and recs.

Um also made the motion.

No, so all right, now I'm confused.

You're just reading off the bulleted list of the three changes, I think.

All right, so um to remove the part-time uh financial uh uh person and um to move the amount allocated to the human services fund budget of 250,000 to zero.

Great.

Peters made a motion.

And it is to approve the FY General Fund budget and capital plan as presented to return recycling and compost to the uh FY27 budget to remove the part-time finance director from the FY27 budget and to uh remove the human service funding from the FY27 budget.

Um so that's a motion on the table.

Um Peter, do you want to speak to it?

Uh no, I have uh literally um, you know, I'm talk to I'm I'm uh I'm I'm a little I'm a little talked out.

Uh you know, I don't uh there's some aspects of it uh I feel okay about there's other aspects that I don't feel okay about um and Oscar says that's that's a sign of a good I guess that can apply pretty broadly uh that in a mediation if both sides are unhappy that's a signal of a good mediation right well you know I think um for these conversations you know I was I was hoping that it would go in another direction but it didn't so here we are all righty uh Amanda did uh you have uh um an amendment I have a question you have a question yeah for John for John when he's ready.

John you're being the he's right now I'm I'm talking while he's calculating in the middle of something I'll give him a minute could I make a brief oh you I okay I'm coming in at 6.2 right now um okay I will have to double check that's because of that yeah okay because of what it's because of the zero to out for human services that came out at 6.2 did you um so I have a question uh for you John um how much money could we save if we close the municipal center for one day per week um um that might cost us more Amanda the heat is we got to keep the building heated um I don't know yeah I I would have no idea what that would save us but it could likely cost us more cost us more because we're heating the building and people aren't doing the work in it I mean well I'm not sure I'm not sure if you said heating you you identified heating yeah I'm I'm thinking about staff time oh so what's the then I don't understand your proposal I mean what if we only operated the staff within the municipal center um for four days a week rather than five would we would there be cost savings and and you're saying reduce people's uh hours from below thirty seven and a half or have four ten hour days or what what are you what is the proposal um that would be a reduction in yeah in hours per week are we can you uh that would be a as something I'd have to calculate okay um and other things to consider with this is um you know union wages and you you're really you're really considering

Um that would be a reduction in yeah, in hours per week.

Are we can uh that would be a as something I'd have to calculate?

Okay.

Um and other things to consider with this is um you know union wages and you you're really you're really considering um cutting the wages and hours of this staff people who work in this building.

In this building, yeah.

So that's one union.

Yeah.

The work wouldn't go away.

So uh I mean I don't know.

It would have to be loaded up on those other days.

So you probably end up with four days of longer hours.

Um, but I don't know.

I'm I'm just throwing things at the wall here.

We go something we could look at for the next cycle if you want.

Um, is there anything else?

Is there anything else we could potentially cut out of the budget that you could that you could look at that we didn't get to?

I I really think that the the zeroing out of human services is not a realistic to say that the number is 6.2 now is it it's not it's gonna go to town meeting, it's likely gonna change.

I predict.

Maybe it won't.

Maybe it will.

So is there anything else?

Um I not I don't know.

Uh if there's an area uh service that you you think we're providing that we should shouldn't do or should do less of, we can try to figure that out.

But it would be I don't I don't know what that would be.

I would need a suggestion.

Yes.

Well I don't see that this I I'm not so sure how feasible this item, the suggestion is that you suggested, Amanda.

I just want to appreciate the fact that even though I disagree with you on the curb side pickup, I appreciate that you have really stood your ground on this and you've explored, you've turned over a lot of stones.

Um and and I I appreciate and as I said at a previous meeting, like I'm will I'm open to continuing these conversations, and I appreciate your willingness to think about how do we save money and how do we get this tax increase reduced.

So I I just wanted to say that and I I don't you were talking a little bit about how the four it was a these votes four to one and and why and uh I'm not sure that that would it was I would quite phrase it the same way.

I don't remember quite what you said, but I just want to say for the record, like I I think it's there's real value in having you're you're bringing a different perspective than to the the board and just really want to appreciate that because it does take a certain amount of stamina and perseverance um and courage to to stand up there and sit up the here and and it be this the sole voice for our position and it it gets us to think about we've done work that we wouldn't have done, I don't think, if you hadn't taken this um position last spring.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Isaac.

Um I still think we need to leave this room with possibly more cuts.

So I'm gonna throw it back to you, Chair.

You recommended three cuts to capital at the last meeting.

Is there one of those that you would entertain to I did not and you you proposed 10 percent off of the three capital?

And I was told that I was dishonest in doing so, and I don't believe that I was.

Do you now are you now saying that it is an honest perspective?

Uh no, I'm just looking for something that our taxpayers can afford.

And so um if there's one item, for example, maybe we cannot, and Oscar's gonna get upset with me, but not put the four and Kate's gonna get upset with me too.

Um the the 44,000 added back to capital for the fire truck reserve.

Is anyone willing to um we've we've bit we've beaten that horse.

And we said in that meeting when we talked about it, don't worry, we're putting that money back in in two weeks.

I can't I can't go with you on this one.

Um I I trust uh that John Potter has um examined this budget to a fairly well.

And when we've sincerely interrogated him to find any more savings, uh he has thoroughly done so, as have each of us in our own analysis.

And um I you know I can appreciate you asking the question all day long, but I I don't think that there's going to be an answer.

And to be fair, there have been things in this budget tonight that John told us he really needed, like that finance position.

We said no.

We we know best we we're not gonna do it, and we'll see how that plays out.

But I think I think the tree has been thoroughly shaken.

I'm not so sure, Oscar.

Excellent.

Um what are you saying, Isaac?

I think that there are some areas where we could look.

Um it's not this is an easy, but I also don't think it's easy to have a 6.2 or 7.7% increase.

Um in a meeting in a meeting lost track of the days.

Today, Thursday?

Yep.

Okay.

So last week on Tuesday, I had made a a suggestion that we uh that we decrease the three what was that the three of the larger the five largest um departments that had had in terms of that had seen personnel growth in recent years that we decreased those by by five percent.

Um I we didn't get I don't think we got three head nods on that.

Um but I think we could go back to, you know, okay.

We've we've looked at the the new, we basically said no to the new full-time positions in this budget.

We've said no to new positions.

The thing that I would look at next would be at where are there vacant positions, particularly in um departments that have seen recent personnel growth.

That's where I would I would inquire next.

Can we discuss that, Isaac?

So what you're saying is essentially the same thing that we told you about last spring, which is hiring freeze.

No.

If a position is vacant, that doesn't mean that it's not necessary.

You know, we've discussed the fact that we're not hiring the IT coordinator, even though we really mean one because you know, and the assistant town manager and all these other positions, because uh we've made up we've made a budgetary decision.

But a vacant position is something entirely different.

A vacant position could occur from a multitude of reasons, but that doesn't mean that the department has decided it doesn't need that position.

And it doesn't mean that the town manager has decided that we don't need that position.

It just means for one reason or another, it is not presently filled.

So that's an that is not a budgetary question.

That's a personnel question, and it's just a completely different kettle of fish from what the select board is supposed to be determining, which is really a policy question.

And you know, last Thursday as opposed to last Tuesday, we had Oscar's motion to uh cut across the board 3%, and that was modified to 3% for the large departments and one and a half percent for the small departments, and we all saw that play out in a very dramatic fashion, and that suggestion was rescinded in favor of the statement to John to get the budget down below six percent.

And gosh, aren't we close now?

And so I I don't know what to say other, but I do believe that that was a response to part of Isaac's question.

So Isaac has the floor.

Do you have more things you want to suggest?

Oh yeah.

That there could be a reduction in a position or reduction in employee hours in larger departments that wouldn't eliminate an entire program or service.

So I think that's where we've um we've agreed as a board that we don't want at least the majority.

So maybe there could be a reduction in service without further reduction in service without getting rid of an entire service.

Could I reply briefly?

Sure.

Just in the interests of mercy to everyone in this room, I'm gonna suggest a bit of a short circuit here, which is to concede that I think I don't quite I I am outmatched in in hunger for budget cuts by Isaac and Amanda.

I'm happy to concede that.

But in the interests of it, I guess what is it quarter to 11?

Um my feeling is that there are not three head nods for exploring more staff reductions in this budget, and that if that is not the case, um I I have a you know 20 seconds I would like to say about the budget as a whole before I vote.

I obviously have some concerns, but what's on paper here at this hour at this date, I'm not really interested in making major changes too.

So if there are three of us who feel that way and are are willing to accept that responsibility, I think we could move to a vote.

Great.

So Oscar has basically called the question.

Kinda.

And so I think that we should uh respect that.

And Peter made a motion.

And Peter's motion was to approve the FY General Fund budget and capital plan as as amended, which consists of adding back recycling on compost, removing the part-time finance director, and zeroing out the human service budget.

Also like board members in favor of that motion, please raise your hand and say aye.

As much as I hate to suggest it, I think we should give the public one more chance before we make the big vote.

There's a hand up, so I'm mentioning it.

Really?

Kate.

I just want to ask Kate Passy the whole thing.

I'm not gonna have to convince you guys to not do anything with the budget, whatever.

It just disturbs me as a as a person that you're actually voting on this right now when you're actually not holding it in your hand and you're guessing, oh, it might be 7.7, it might be 6.2.

When I was on the select board when we were at this point where we all agreed on this is what the budget is, we said, okay, town manager, take it back, put it in a form, we'll come back at another meeting, take five minutes and approve it.

I'm not asking you to change it or anything right now.

I'm just disturbed that you guys are actually voting on something when you're guessing what what it is.

That's just what's bugging me.

I'm not asking you to do anything, change anything.

This whole process has irritated the heck out of me, and now I feel like I've been pushed to the top because this is not how a select board does it, or it does now, but it didn't in the entire six years.

Just agree that this is what you want, tell the town manager to come back with it and have a special meeting, do one on Tuesday and take five minutes to look at that pretty little package as opposed to these little napkins and pieces of paper you got going on here.

Sorry for being so frenzied, but I'm just frustrated as I'll get out watching what's happening.

Thank you, and I do appreciate all your work.

Didn't sound frenzied.

Sound logical.

Um I have a question too, since we're still discussing.

Um if so, say for example, we I move to put an article on the ballot to ask the taxpayers if they want to pay for the curbside compost program.

Would that be a discussion to happen right now with approving or disapproving the budget?

Or for the articles?

Like, would we need to approve the budget and then also put in an article?

Um or more input is needed.

So John, can you answer that question, please?

Uh I think it would be germane to your next conversation, however.

Um well, so if you were to approve the budget tonight, then you would want to maybe have that conversation first.

If instead you wanted to do like what Kate O'Connor suggested and pick this up again next week, then the order wouldn't mat I mean, then the order wouldn't be as as concerning.

Amanda, can I just make a suggestion?

Which would be that if you were thinking about taking this the compost program, which is additional commitment for the town in a way, um that be something that be put to town meeting rather than um thinking of it as an Australian ballot?

Rather than thinking of it as an advisory article, you're saying Yeah.

Allow the if you really if you really want the the town meeting to discuss it, or if you want more input on the compost program that you take it put it to town meeting, or that be the proposal.

Sounds good.

May I if we're about to vote, may I make a two sentence comment?

Sure.

I just want to, I don't know, enter into the record that I've put too much work into this budget, and I think there are too many good decisions in here for me to vote no on it.

So I'm gonna vote yes on it.

I uh you heard my concerns about the human services part, and I'm saddened that we couldn't find that compromise, but for the people watching, that's why in a minute I'm gonna vote yes.

And maybe for Kate, yeah, I don't know.

Maybe I just have more tolerance for scrappiness at 11 p.m.

But we've done it this way.

This is how it happens at town meeting, right?

It's amended on the floor.

Somebody goes off into a corner with a pad of paper.

At this point, I I can tolerate it.

All right, so we have a motion on the floor.

How about I interrupt?

Yeah.

Go right ahead.

All right.

Um Kate, thank you for that.

I um, you know, but uh I think you know Oscar makes a a good point.

Um so um I I do I do want to say that I just want to reiterate that um I was hoping the exercise for the human services budget would go in a different direction.

Um it did not.

And um I fully expect that when we get to um our town meeting, um I I suspect there will be some resistance to that number.

Um, and I will uh I will I will discuss it as as full throated as as they do.

Um I'm in support of helping those in need.

Um and as I said, I just I I feel strongly about just saying that as this was an exercise and and I'm I'm wait I'm willing to see it put out, but if we get to town meeting um and they decide to re-enter that number into the budget, then it will have the support that that I am looking for, which is a majority of the people.

And if it does not, then I will also defend that.

All right.

So once again, let me say we have a motion on the table.

Peters made a motion.

I'm gonna repeat it one more time and then we're gonna vote.

All right, to approve the FY 27 general fund budget and capital plan as amended to include recycling and and compost at $177,000 and $683 to remove the part-time finance clerk at $9,000, and to remove the human service budget allocation of 249,07, which brings the budget to a total of $27,18,335.

Oh, and select board members in favor of that motion, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All select board members not in favor, please raise your hand and say no.

Nay.

No.

Okay, that's uh Amanda and Isaac voting no.

I would like to congratulate us for bringing the conversation to a conclusion and move to the next item.

And uh this draft warning for annual town meeting representative town meeting must continue this evening, must it?

What's that?

Must we continue this this evening?

Um well so this is this we were just presenting this so that you could see it.

And if you wanted to suggest any changes for next Tuesday, um we would love to know them now so that we could make those changes and bring it back.

It has to be warned next Tuesday.

And then um due to the lateness of the hour.

Uh does the um finance report need to be discussed tonight, or could it be discussed on Tuesday?

Do we have a full meeting on Tuesday?

We have a very full meeting next Tuesday.

I'm willing to table it for I'm willing.

I I just I just really um don't want to be hearing any more numbers after 11 o'clock in the month.

I agree uh with you, is I mean, even a full meeting, we still could be getting it to it earlier than 11 p.m.

on Tuesday.

I would agree.

So uh Amanda, are you concur?

Yes.

I concur.

Pete.

I want to do it tonight.

Sure.

But can we let's talk about the warning.

Okay, great.

All right, John.

Yes, tell us about the warning.

Well, um so there are two draft warnings in your backup materials.

One is for the annual town meeting, the ballot, and the other is for representative town meeting.

Um I say uh the annual town meeting warrant uh has four articles in it.

One is r regarding town officers and what we know to be the current uh vacancies there.

Uh the second article is the one that the board uh voted to put on the ballot uh at your meeting of December 2nd, and that is whether the voters should discontinue the representative form of annual meeting.

And then the last two articles are the two charter petition articles that um citizens brought to you and must be placed on the on this ballot.

Uh the one on um Australian ballot and the other on open town meeting.

So that is the annual town meeting warrant.

Are there any changes in that that the board would like to entertain?

I would just suggest you clarify for the public that there will be public hearings associated with each of the petitions, and when that will occur.

So the first one is your meeting next Tuesday.

So that will take up a pr probably pretty good um amount of your meeting next week, and um that will be the first thing on the agenda.

My only question on this one, I know we're sort of limited by petitions, but it seems like this language is a little um can Article 4, the first sentence also say in the event that the vote on Article 2 is in the affirmative instead of that sort of different version of that first sentence, or are we stuck?

Article uh Oscar, let's let's ask Hannah.

That's what the petition said, and you can't make anything other than technical edits.

Okay, and that would exceed the bounds of technical edits saying instead of it's discontinued saying if the art vote on Article 2 is in the affirmative and it's not a big deal, but I think it can't be changed.

It can't be changed.

Hannah looks skeptical.

I I understand what you're saying that it might be confusing.

I think you could possibly make that correction as a technical edit so that the two petitions match um so that it's clear, but I mean that that petition was brought as if it's discontinued, it wasn't sort of contingent on another the reason that the first one is phrased differently is because that one originally had the question that you pulled out as its first article.

I I'm not gonna fight for it.

But that was one of the advice.

Pardon me.

Does anyone else have any comments on the on these the warnings for annual town meeting March election day, March 3rd, 2026?

No.

No.

Do we need to m move to approve them or just do that actually?

Okay, great.

All right then.

But I find this language in if the vote on this Article 3 is in the affirmative, Article 2, Section 3 shall be added.

It's not very reader-friendly.

And I'm thinking about if we have we have to have this legal language.

You have to have that language in there.

Then okay.

Then let's all do our best.

And I think some of us already are doing this to really try to explain this in a non-biased, unbiased way to our our fellow residents of Brown.

We're also required to have two public information sessions to explain it to the voters.

Great.

Okay.

This motion was written on the advice of town council.

And that provision specifically at the end, those were both actually drafted by myself and presented to the petitioners for their approval, and they've approved that language because you are required to specifically state the additions or edits to the charter that you are making along with the petition.

Excellent.

All right.

If we've dispensed with the first, the next one is annual representative town meeting March 21st, 2026, and March 22nd, 2026, if necessary.

First, uh we have uh John, do you want to do we need to read all these?

What's the question No, I mean it's really it's uh I can quickly explain it if you want.

Um so uh one of the one of the things in this draft uh that's a little different is uh article one is uh consolidation of three articles that typically um have been on the warrant for representative town meeting um you can split those out again if you want uh the town attorney said that it's you know for speeding up the meeting it's perfectly fine to do all three and certainly anyone on the floor at town meeting could separate them again or you know propose to separate them if they wanted um kind of procedural uh then um some of these things are just typical what you've had on representative town meeting warning in the past uh you the mountain home and the downtown improvement district uh then you have the three uh the three exemptions that you discussed this evening were on here speculatively in case you approved them um and now you you have uh authorized to you know to put those on um article eight is your tip your typical budget article um that sorry we'll I'm sorry to interrupt will that that'll have a number in it when the time comes yes yes the motion will have yes um and so there are a couple other articles that are um more or less consolidated into this article eight and those that is things like um in the past there have been separate articles for like select board uh salaries there's been a separate article for human services spending and the thought was to do that all in article eight the same conversations are likely to happen but they would be done in the context of the whole budget rather than as separate just um separate discussions on uh a warrant um then the rest of them are all appointments that are typically made um at town meeting and they did not make sense to consolidate or to speed up the meeting anyways this in any way so this this was really uh I think over a few years in conversations with the town moderator and the town attorney um just try uh the feedback that we've heard is what can be done to not have such a long meeting at town meeting and and so I think we've seen a gradual um kind of streamlining of that and trying to to make that more efficient so that's the general thought behind this draft but whatever any changes you want to and I I know the town moderator has sort of reordered things as well to suit his logic so does the select board want to comment on these motions and then I'll open it to the public I yeah briefly um I would have said that I would prefer to see human services as its own article as it's always been done that's moot now um and I kind of would have said we should bring well we should bring back the recommended number thing but it doesn't really seem to have much force so I'm fine with that I guess and then everything else on here seems like a logical consolidation and I'm fine with it.

And then everything else on here seems like a logical consolidation, and I'm fine with it.

Anyone else on the board want to speak to these motions?

Articles.

Articles.

I I'm keen to hear from the public, and especially if the chair of the human services committee cares to comment.

I'm keen to hear from the public as well.

Gemma first.

Gemma Seymour District 8.

Um I would just like to strongly suggest that the select board separate out the human services budget as a separate article.

In the interests of getting the rest of the budget passed, the human services budget is obviously going to be the most contentious issue.

And I don't think we should let that get in the way of the rest of the budget.

The second item, which is actually the first item, is I'm a little confused as to what happens if Article 2 discontinuing representative form of town meeting is approved, and yet Article 3 and Article 4 are both voted down.

Thank you.

Or if they're both voted up, which is also possible.

Yep.

Hannah, would you tell us, please?

The Oracle.

So just to restate Gemma's question to make sure I have it correct.

If Article 2, the discontinuance of RTM goes through, meaning no more RTM, and both of the petitions do not go through.

Then we would default to open town meeting under state law and every other provision in the charter other than those pertaining to RTM remains in effect.

So everything that we've already decided to vote on by Australian ballot, like the election of officers will still be by Australian ballot, but anything that's currently done by RTM will default into open town meeting until the town votes to go to Australian ballot or go back to some other representative form of government.

Let me just make sure I understood you.

So the first vote, RTM or written down.

If it's down, then it's over and it defaults to open town meeting.

The so it's I think it's just easier to say like if there's if the RTM stays, the other the petitions are moot because they conflict.

They're dependent upon it.

They can't go through unless we discontinue RTM.

RTM goes away.

Neither both or one or the other of the petitions could pass.

And they would go to the legislature and they would decide what to approve.

But in the meantime, we would default.

So we would have an open town meeting.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Uh more public comment.

Kate and then Randy.

Hi Kate O'Connor Brattleboro.

I just want to point out that there are actually two articles that are no longer on the warning that always were.

One was to accept the audit, and two was to hire a certified public accountant.

From my work on the Charter Revision Commission, I know why those are there, they're done in other mechanisms.

So I understand that.

But I just, and I might get gonged, but I just want to be assured that we will have an audit done that will be included for representative town meeting because per state statute, there has to be an audit done, and it has to be in the annual report.

So I'm hoping that those are just not there, those have been gone because of the technical reasons, not because we're not going to have an audit.

So are we going to have an audit?

John, you want to answer that.

Um I was going to report to the board on uh the audit saga uh next Tuesday.

Um I have a draft memo from Bonnie Batchelder on that.

Um right now we we've had a lot of difficulty trying to find somebody to respond to several RFPs that we've put out.

Um we may have to we we will report numbers in the town report, but they may be they will be unaudited numbers and we'll have to complete the audit when um auditors are freed up from all the other work that they have.

And um so that's kind of where we're at.

That was the news I was gonna bring you next Tuesday.

And and um also next Tuesday, we have a plan to meet with the state auditor, and they may be able to shed some light on our audit situation.

But basically, if I remember correctly, uh what the town is doing is kind of a pre-audit statement that uh would make it easy for an auditor if we could find one to review.

Um, but that the law, like there is law about what to do when you don't have an audit, and could you tell us what that is?

Yeah, we will we'll meet the statutory obligations, correct, Hannah?

We will we will meet the statutory obligations as best we can.

There are provisions for if you do not have an appointed or elected auditor.

Um and it's basically what John said, which is that it it's just presented with a disclaimer that it has not been fully um audited or it's unofficial.

Um and the reason it is also not included in the warning is there's no requirement to act on the audit is for informational purposes for the voters.

There you have it.

All right, Randy.

First question on that note.

So when will that booklet be available so we know if we had a deficit or not, or where we were at on the last year's budget?

Second question is do all these articles just transferred open town meeting if that's what we have.

We learned this evening, or at least I did, that depending on the outcome of the vote, if RTM goes away, an open town meeting is established, then that we would have to reconvene and rewarn these articles for this distinct different meeting.

Okay, that's what I was reading, so I wanted to make sure.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I mean it it uh it should be hopefully done in the next three weeks or so and be available well in advance of town meeting.

It's required by law to be available ten days before the vote.

No.

So I'm curious because I've read that the state statute is that Vermont state law allows for human service allocations to be voted on as a separate article or part of the budget.

So I'm curious who makes that call, if that's under your guys' purview.

Um and if that is because I had been asking Hannah questions at the break, and Hannah it's my understanding was that it was said that it they do have to be voted on at town meeting, but I am now assuming that that could just be done as a budget line, the way all the other budget lines are voted on.

Yep.

Okay.

Um I I would personally ask and advocate for that also being sliced out in a separate article.

I understand it's controversial.

I understand people get tired about the time with it.

I think you're gonna have an angry crowd either way.

Um I do think if people want to change the process, that's all well and good.

Um I don't think it should be done.

I think it should be done going forward, not retroactively.

I think it's against the spirit that we promote through the structure of having a town meeting-based government.