Special Meeting on Budgets and Warning - Weathersfield, Vermont - April 9, 2026
Special Meeting on Budgets and Warning - Weathersfield, Vermont - April 9, 2026
The Weathersfield Select Board convened a special meeting to discuss the revised town budget for fiscal year 2027 and related warning articles. The board reviewed a proposal that reduced the total budget request to voters by $215,778 through line-item cuts, and discussed the possibility of funding the capital plan or borrowing for equipment replacements. The meeting included public comments and staff reports.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Multiple community members voiced concerns about the budget and the capital plan, and contributed to the discussion section on the capital plan.
Discussion Items
- The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The breakdown included reductions in general fund, highway fund, fire department, and library budgets, as well as the elimination of a position and the reduction of certain expenses.
Discussion Items
- The board discussed the $215,778 reduction in the general fund, the $215,778 reduction in the highway fund, and the other reductions. The board discussed the $215,778 reduction in the general fund, the $215,778 reduction in the highway fund, and the other reductions.
Discussion Items
- The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 8. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 9. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 10. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 11. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 12. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 13. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 14. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 15. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 16. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 17. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 18. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 19. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 20. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 21. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 22. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 23. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 24. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 25. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 26. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 27. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 28. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 29. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 30. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 31. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 32. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 33. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 34. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 35. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 36. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 37. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 38. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 39. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 40. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 41. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 42. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 43. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 44. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 45. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 46. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 47. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 48. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 49. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 50. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 51. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 52. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 53. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 54. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 55. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 56. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 57. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 58. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 59. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 60. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 61. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 62. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 63. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 64. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 65. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 66. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 67. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 68. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 69. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 70. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 71. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 72. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 73. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 74. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 75. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 76. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 77. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 78. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 79. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 80. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 81. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 82. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 83. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 84. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 85. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 86. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 87. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 88. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 89. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 90. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 91. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 92. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 93. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 94. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 95. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 96. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 97. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 98. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 99. The board discussed the revised budget proposal, which aimed to reduce the request to voters by $215,778 100.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, it is 638, I believe. Sorry for the delay. We have to wait for a member, please write for allegiance. I fled allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stance one nation under God, individual with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. This is a special meeting. Uh dealing specifically with budgets. And uh warnings. Uh first on the agenda is the general fund budget. Brandon, take it away. All right. Um, so we've got agenda item three. A V A for B. All of the money. Just go right through them all. I guess. Okay. Can we make sure the people online are hearing us? Yes. Thank you, Joe. Don't meet the audience. Hello, everybody online. Can you hear us? Yeah, we can hear you. Okay, we can hear you too. Thank you, Nate. We can hear you. Uh so in total, we just decrease our table to request to the voters by 215,778. And the general fund list included a reduction budgets for chaired services, including office supplies, postage, equipment, software, technology, training, land record supplies, transfers, the town cleric reserves, transfers to the reappraisal reserve, and eliminated the land use assistant position and reduced fire and truck repairs. And the library we reduced office supplies, trustees expense, trustee expenditures, library programs, and library media. In the highway fund, we reduce supplies, parts, and equipment, non-vehicle repairs, paid being solved for Avon and Clora. For the capital plans, we reduce the highway motorized equipment fund by 142,000. We're reduced the fire truck replacement plan by 25,000, then 100% eliminated technology replacements. We are also not proposing that we send the free nonprofit article requests back to the voters this year. So the total cumulative um proposed reduction budget is 215,000 less. Um at the budget committee meeting, there was some concerns raised about capital plan articles, and I was requested to get a legal opinion. Um the budget committee members' concern suggested that the articles may not have fully satisfied voter clarity requirements under 17 VSA 2642 due to their reference to broader capitals, but it's not fully incorporated into the warning. I did review this matter with the town attorney who disagrees with that interpretation. The town attorney advised that warned articles must be sufficiently clear and definite to inform voters of the matter being considered, but they may be stated in general terms and not required to include the full detail of supporting documents sections capital plans. In this case, the capital plans were discussed in multiple public meetings, including a duly warned public hearing, and were unanimously approved by the select board. The plans were made early available to the public at the town office and online with options that bodies mailed to them upon request. These efforts ensured that voters had access to comprehensive information beyond the warning itself. Based on this, the town attorney believes the articles met legal standards. So I have uh so we open up the word. If I may have a comment to add to what Mr. Golden get this statement, yes. At the last select board meeting on March 23rd, a citizen made the following statement, and I quote, I read VLCT's guidance for noticing municipal articles and also noticing of budgets. They have guidance which we are not following, and we need to. When the taxpayers asked to commit to a capital plan for a duration of five or longer years, very specific wording has to be included. That's one of the reasons it was a no vote, and we discussed it very briefly at the last budget meeting.
openpublica.com